Relativity for Believers
This article comes from a discussion of an article on black holes published in PSI.
It was clear from that discussion that some did not understand the consequences of a constant speed of light, relativity, time dilation, or special relativity.
I would like to start with the disclaimer that I do not believe in a constant speed of light, relativity, a dilation of time or even time, and that gravity is not a function of mass. I am a mega skeptic.
A man sitting on a chair at the equator believes he is not moving. An observer on the moon will see the man moving at .5 km/sec from the rotation of the Earth.
A third observer in space above the solar system will see the man moving at 30 km/sec + or – .5 km/sec from the orbiting of the Earth around the sun. All the observers have firm data supporting their position so which is correct?
It was the observation of the bizarre movement of the planets that led Copernicus (pictured above) to propose that the sun was the center of the solar system not the Earth even though all observations showed the sun moving around the Earth. How do you determine what the right perspective is?
Einstein solution was to make the speed of light constant (in a vacuum) and everything else varied. A man on a moving train fires a bullet forward. He observes the bullet moving at the same rate as if the train was stationary.
An observer outside the train observes the bullet moving at its normal speed plus the speed of the train. Einstein proposed that if the man on the moving train were to shine a light forward he would see that light moving at the speed of light. (I don’t know how you see light moving away from you.)
For the man on the train the length of a km gets larger while the duration of a second increases. The observer on the ground would see the light moving at the speed of light, not the speed of light plus the speed of the train. This is the concept of the constant speed of light. Light can not go faster or slower then its speed in a vacuum.
A velocity is the distance something travels in a certain time. In order for the man on the train to see the light moving at the speed of light it means that his velocity causes time and distance to contract.
Below, a simple animation also explains the concept:
The faster he moves the shorter a km becomes and shorter the duration of a second thus preserving the ratio and the constant speed of light. Relativity is that the speed of light determines the correct basis or foundation for all observations by that observer.
If another observer (the man not on the train) has a different speed of light then he will have a different basis or perspective for all his measurements.
Einstein’s special relativity, E=mc^2, states that when you accelerate an object by adding energy to it, the mass of the object increases. The greater the velocity of an object the greater its mass, the slower time moves, and the shorter distances become.
This is from the perspective of an outside observer not for someone on the object. For the observer on the object the speed of light does not change, the mass does not change, and time and distance do not change.
When an object is accelerating towards a singularity, as it approaches the speed of light time becomes slower and slower but only for the object. To an outside observer, with a different speed of light reference perspective the object quickly disappears into the black hole.
The object does not accelerate to a zero velocity.
A black hole is where the force of gravity is so strong that light cannot escape, hence the name black hole. This is not because of some great force of gravity from the object but because of the distance to it.
Black hole explained in this video:
A sun 100 times the size of our sun, that becomes the singularity, had greater mass and a greater force of gravity than the singularity but it also had greater size.
Since gravity is measured from the center of an object and decreases with distance there could be no electromagnetic radiation or energy escaping from the sun’s center and being radiated into space just as light cannot escape from a black hole.
After converting mass to energy and radiating that energy into space, this sun loses mass, force of gravity, and size. Eventually it becomes a neutron star where the energy of converting electrons and protons into neutrons is radiated into space.
The size of the neutron star is about 15 km in diameter when the force of gravity becomes so strong at that distance that the star collapses into a singularity.
Since the neutron star had a greater mass and force of gravity than the singularity and was able to radiate light into space the event horizon for the singularity must be less than 15 km. This is a small object in space and must move just as stars move.
When an object, we’ll use one of our Voyager satellites as an example, encounters the gravitational field of a singularity it will be drawn towards it. The force of gravity will add energy to Voyager increasing its velocity and kinetic energy. (It was by taking energy from planets that Voyager got enough energy to escape our solar system.)
As its energy/velocity increases so to does the mass, according to E=mc^2. Since energy or mass cannot be created or destroyed the increase in energy/mass of Voyager must be offset by a decrease in the energy/mass of the singularity.
Because the singularity is moving Voyager will not collide with it just as a comet does not collide with the sun. Gravity pulls an object towards itself not towards where it is going to be.
This means Voyager will take energy/mass from the singularity, just as it did from the planets, and be propelled into space out of the gravitational field of the singularity. The singularity will lose mass and force of gravity to all object encountering its gravitation field except perhaps light.
So according to E=mc^2 there are singularities but because E = mc^2 singularities and black holes do not exist.
Do you wonder why I don’t believe in a constant speed of light, relativity, time dilation, or gravity is a function of mass?
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
geraint hughes
| #
Herb,
I have a question. Do you have any examples of large gravity occurring, but without a heavy mass to explain it? Some links would be nice too. Thanks.
Reply
Koen Robersscheuten
| #
I checked if it was not April’s Fools day. It really harms this website’s reputation.
Quote
Since gravity is measured from the center of an object and decreases with distance there could be no electromagnetic radiation or energy escaping from the sun’s center
Unquote
In the Sun’s center, just as in any center of a large mass, there is no gravitation. The center of attraction is just a mathematical construct that only works for objects at the surface or higher.
One should calculate the sum of all the force vectors. And for an object at the center of the planet or sun, all these vectors cancel out. In a hypothetical room at the center of the earth, one would be weigthless.
Every line in this article is bogus.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Koen,
I agree that gravity is not measured from the center. That is Newton’s formula which I believe he got from the force between two magnets, which is also the wrong formula. The correct formula for the force between two magnets is M3 = (M1 + M2)/d where M3 is the strength of the magnet being formed as the magnetic fields of the two magnets (M1 and M2) combine and. d is the distance from the surface of one magnet to the point where that magnetic field equals the strength of the second magnet. The correct formula for gravity is E = dV^2. Gravity is a function of energy which decreases with distance from the source of the energy field. (Keppler’s law)
I am glad you believe in the use of vectors. If you use vectors for the force of gravity from the Earth and moon on the water on the side of the Earth opposite the moon how do you explain the high tide? If you want to see a mathematical construct look up Wikipedia’s explanation for that high tide. Averages don’t exist in reality.
Every thing in the article is bogus because the speed of light is not constant and all Einstein’s theories are wrong.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Chris Marcil
| #
Koen, this is an example of two theories competing. No one has yet been to the center of the Earth so your hypothesis does not carry any greater weight than Herbs does. When observed facts exist then perhaps we will know for sure.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb, thanks for putting these notes together. You raise many interesting points. The video clips are particularly helpful in explaining the issues. I wanted to explore your comment about Voyager a bit more. Are you concluding that earth, for example, is gaining mass as it orbits around the sun? If so how could we calculate the rate of mass increase?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert’,
The videos were done by PSI. I had nothing to do with them.
As to the Earth gaining mass from traveling around the sun this comes from E = mc^2 and since I don’t believe it or that gravity is a function of mass I will try to explain it using current physics.
When energy (E) is added to an object it velocity increases. Because the speed of light is constant in all reference frames the velocity of an object cannot keep increasing.When energy is added some of that energy is converted to mass instead of increasing velocity. The amount of energy becoming mass is the ratio of the objects velocity to the speed of light. For the orbiting Earth, with a constant velocity, a small portion of its mass is from energy added to attain its velocity. The mass of the Earth will not increase unless energy is added to it, increasing its velocity.
I hope this clarifies thing for you but its hard to make sense out of nonsense.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb, I note “The mass of the Earth will not increase unless energy is added to it, increasing its velocity.”
Although earth has a nearly circular orbit, it does follow a variable speed – following Kepler’s law: speed at aphelion 29.29 km/s speed and at perihelion 30.29 km/s.
According to the Milankovitch Cycles earth’s eccentricity is currently at a low ebb but increases by a 5 times factor during cycles which repeat on a 400 ky time frame. Given velocity is the determining factor, what effect do you think this would have on earth’s mass given we are talking about a 4.5 by time frame?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Since the speed of light is 3,000,000 km/s a change of 1 km/sec would not result in significant mass change.
As I stated at the beginning of the article I am not a believer in the constant speed of light or relativity so I do not believe that there is any mass change in Voyager or the Earth. In fact, lately I’ve come to doubt the existence of mass.
I watched the videos. Thank you for bringing them to my attention.
Every time I hear a physicist cite the Michelson-Morely experiment as proof of the constant speed flight I cringe. After the Young experiment established the wave nature of light, the aether theory was proposed as the medium in which light travelled. The aether permeated the universe including all mater, planets, and stars and they moved through it. The experiment was designed to detect this aether. By splitting a beam of light and having two perpendicular beams intersect an interference patter would be seen as the motion of the Earth changed traveling through the aether. The negative results of the experiment proved the theory of aether was wrong not that the speed of light is constant. Light is a disturbance in the electric and magnetic fields that permeate the universe and since all objects, like the Earth, have these fields the experiment failed.
If the only proof of a fundamental foundation of physics is the negative result of an experiment based on a theory known to be wrong then physics is on very shaky ground. Since there are experiments and observations showing waves or star moving faster than the speed of light the foundation of Einsteinian physics makes quicksand look like concrete.
I also believe the diagram illustrating general relativity is fake and a fraud trying to persuade people rather than illustrate the theory. If you are going to use a two dimensional plane to represent the four dimensional space-time continuum you cannot use a tree dimensional sphere to represent. the sun or Earth. You are saying that the object has a fifth dimension that produces a fifth dimensional distortion in the four dimensional space-time continuum and this fifth dimension some how causes objects to orbit. It is dimensional inconsistency the same as those pictures where you can go down four flights of stairs and arrive at where you started. A proper diagram would be that you have a two dimensional plane representing the four dimensions you also must use a two dimensional disc to represent the sun or Earth. This would produce no vortex and support the contention that some how mass is able go distort space-time.
Since I do not believe that gravity is a function of mass but is a result of energy you can see that as I stated at the beginning of the article I am a mega skeptic
Have a good day,
Herb.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hello again Robert,
A major problem I have with making the speed of light constant and using it as the basis for reference is that no meter what motion you have, from traveling in a jet, the rotation of the Earth, the orbiting of the Earth, or the movement of the solar system in the Milky Way your velocity is always zero according to the observed speed of light. For the people falling into a black hole they believe they are not moving.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb, “For the people falling into a black hole they believe they are not moving.” This is one of those paradigms we can take as we like. IMO they are not moving because they have been disassembled. This is one of those results you finish up with by extrapolating a concept way beyond what is reasonable. A bit like saying, if you can stretch gum 30 cm what will happen to it when you stretch 30 km?
I have no problem with the concept that as the force of gravity increases, time slows.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
By making the speed of light constant every perspective becomes correct and there is no velocity of the observer. The observer is stationary with his measurement of the speed of light and everything around them is moving.. Physics has abandoned reason. Just like the twin paradox on determining which twin is moving. It al depends on the perspective of the observer. To conclude that only one of the twins is moving is to revert to the belief that there is a “correct” perspective and the speed of light is not constant.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
For completeness: Note the force of gravity has an upper limit where G equals 6.693 × 10^28, and the maximum time dilation has the reciprocal value, as discussed in the Gravispheres PROM paper.
The video clips provide good descriptions of two great physics conundrums. Einstein’s Relativity – the speed of light, and black holes (BH).
I imagine that light rays will be shown to have parallels with gravity rays, or Electromagnetic Gravity Strings (EGS) as discussed at
http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/GRAVIPOWER.pdf
A better understanding of string theory and entangled particles appears critical to comprehending both light and gravity.
However my main focus is more on BH. In the second video, ‘Black Holes Explained’ the concept includes a mass of material that is so large that not even light can escape. It proceeds to White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars, as bodies composed of very dense atomic particles. The number of BH in the universe is said to be very large. Hawking concluded that BH do emit radiation and eventually run out of matter until they disappear completely. The holy grail to this conga line of events is a ‘theory of everything’.
There can be little doubt that BH are massive, quiescent, and the contents probably contain separate atomic and quantum particles. These combine to produce very high gravity – now evident in astronomical observations.
The Gravispheres paper extends this thesis by placing a limit on the possible force of gravity at the edge of a BH, as well as viewing BH as frequent occurences, but does not see the BH structure as ever disappearing. In addition, Gravispheres sees BH as being the central focus of gravitational fields contained within individual gravispheres. It goes on to conclude that the strength of gravity varies throughout the universe, which obviates the need for ‘dark matter’. The paper also provides a mechanism to support the Static Universe thesis. Hopefully it also proves to be plausible.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Black holes emit energy in the form of gravitational force not radiation. Doesn’t the force of gravity transfer energy between two masses causing their kinetic energy to increase? If energy is another form of mass this means gravity is transferring mass between objects and one of the objects must be losing mass/energy to the other.
The gravitational force emitted from a singularity is a radiation of energy and the transfer of energy to any object encountering the gravitational field.
The mass of a singularity must be less than the masses of the preceding objects as they converted mater into energy and distributed that energy into the universe. The singularity cannot have a greater mass without the creation of mass or energy which is a no no. Not even the magical powers of quantum physics is allowed to create mass and its resulting force of gravity.The power of the gravitational attraction of a singularity comes from its smaller size not a greater mass and so its size must be smaller than any of the intermediate stages.
Gravity is not uniform in the universe because it decreases with distance from its source just as heat, light, and other forms of energy decrease from their source. The reason we observe black holes in the center of galaxies is because that is where the light from all the stars in the galaxies converge and cancel each other out just as light waves are canceled out in the interference patterns in the dual thin slit experiment.
The creation of “dark mater” just like the creation of potential energy is trying to make gravity a function of mass instead of being a result of energy. The only reason we associate mass with gravity is because Newton needed a source for his force and the data (velocity of a planet squared and its distance from the sun) provided no source, necessitating the creation go the gravitational constant providing mass as the source. How can there be binary asteroids if gravity is from mass?
It is clear we disagree on fundamentals of physics which is a good thing as promotes discussion (not arguments) and developed understanding. I do not believe in the photon or particle nature of light.
The reason for the creation of the photon was the photoelectric effect. The argument was that if light were a wave it would take time to transfer enough energy (a quantum) to an atom to dislodge an electron and cause a current. The problem with this objection is that assumes the only way to produce a current is to dislodge an electron from an atom by adding energy to it. None of the electricity we use is produced in this manner. The photoelectric effect is a result of a changing electromagnetic wave of the right size distorting an ionic bond in a crystal causing an increase in the repelling force between electrons and dislodging an electron. It is just another version of the piezo electric effect but instead of a mechanical distortion a changing electromagnetic field causes the distortion. Without the photon the speed of light cannot be constant.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb. “Black holes emit energy in the form of gravitational force not radiation. Doesn’t the force of gravity transfer energy between two masses causing their kinetic energy to increase? If energy is another form of mass this means gravity is transferring mass between objects and one of the objects must be losing mass/energy to the other.”
You have just argued with me that planets orbiting do not gain mass unless the velocity changes.
Your arguments are not consistent.
BTW How do you know BH emit gravitation and not radiation? This flys in the face of astronomical observations.
We are in full agreement:- “its hard to make sense out of nonsense”.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
I believe I stated that I do not believe that planets or Voyager gain mass as their velocity increases. That is a result of E = mc^2. I certainly agree that it is inconsistent which is the point I’ve been trying to make. Einstein’s theories contradict themselves.
As to BH emitting gravitational force that is all they are since a singularity is the ghost of a vanished sun.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Koen Robersscheuten
| #
“constancy of the speed of light”
Einstein did not assume that the speed of light is constant.
Einstein assumed that the speed of light is constant LOCALLY, meaning that the speed of light is constant in the reference frame of an observer in that non accelerated reference frame.
In a laboratory you always measure c, because your size shrinks, inertial mass increases, and the clock slows down. All these factors conspire to make the laws of physics look the same in any non accelerated frame.
Thus, the speed of light varies wildly between non accelerated frames, but clock rates also vary just as wildly, having the result that your local light speed, measured with your local clock over a local distance gives the local result of c as light speed. Always.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
Einstein also developed the theory of equivalency. He maintained that in an enclosed area with no reference to an outside reference frame that there was no experiment that could be done to distinguish between an accreting body and a gravitational field (false) therefore gravity and acceleration were equivalent. This meant that there was no difference between an accelerating object and a stationary object experiencing gravity and the speed of light is constant to all reference frames.
A clock is just an instrument to measure time and not the same thing as time. Instruments can be inaccurate. In the famous clock tower experiment when he accelerated away from the clock, time appeared to slow down because of the delay of the light from the clock reaching the observer. If the observer accelerated away from the clock then stopped he would see that the clock was no longer in agreement with his watch and time had slowed. If he were then to accelerate back to his initial position he would observe the clock running faster and when he arrived at his starting point his watch and the clock would be in agreement. Time had not changed just the clock had become inaccurate.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply