THE THEORY OF COMPLEX and HIERARCHY of RELATIVITY


Don Edward Sprague,  28 October, 2007


What would most people think if I said that the truth is not true and I have proof? Well that is what Albert Einstein
did in his paper.


Albert said: “For the present we shall assume the truth of the geometrical propositions, then at a later stage (in the
general theory of relativity) we shall see that this truth is limited, and we shall consider the extent of its limitation.”


That is somewhat of a philosophical statement. Who can determine truth when in the study of the fundamental
nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Many people have asked: If a tree falls and there is nobody to hear it
fall, did it make a sound? Sound is simply one way of determining if an event happened. If a person has a bad
battery in their hearing aid and can not hear the tree falling, they would still know that it fell as it lands on them. Not
all people need to be hit on the head to know that something happened. The people who come to rescue the person
under the tree will be able to see the tree has fallen.


Albert also said simultaneous events are not simultaneous. Can you believe it? Two events that happened at the
same time did not happen at the same time.


This is another philosophical question. Again, perception is used for discussion. Perception does not represent reality,
it represents what might be correct or incorrect. Extensive collection and examination of data delivers a greater
chance to arrive at what really happened. Unfortunately; Albert quantified illusions that are now considered to have
become true even though he says truth is limited. An important thing about a quantified illusion is that it can be
repeated and confirmed. A magician can move a person from the stage to the back of the audience over and over
again. The time for that trick to occur can be repeatedly measured and calculated. It is common knowledge that
illusions are not real. YET, ALBERT TURNED ILLUSION INTO REALITY AND REALITY INTO ILLUSION.


Since the time Albert began writing his paper, there have been many brilliant people challenging the theory.  It took
years before people became convinced that illusion should replace reality in physics. Eventually Albert’s work defining
illusion as fact was accepted.  The chorus of brilliant detractors continued since then. People much more intelligent
than I have continually opposed Albert’s theory.  They have been challenging the solid brick wall of the formula and
calculations from experiments that are specifically designed to be self fulfilling proof that illusion should replace
reality.  Now I joined some of the great minds. I am not following the history of almost 100 years of challenges to the
brick wall, I am going after the quagmire under the brick wall.  The foundation of the theory is based on ludicrous
thought experiments that specifically prohibit the inclusion of relevant data.  The pillars of the theory do not stand
inclusive examination.  Simultaneous events are simultaneous and the time of an event does have meaning.  Time
and space do not bend or change. Gravity and acceleration are not the same. None of the pillars stand.


It is well known that there is a relationship between and among things. With Albert’s theories of General and Special
relativity, he specifically excludes data and facts then he makes conclusions based on illusions that are accomplished
by intentionally limiting data. Since Albert’s theories are derived by excluding variables, a more accurate name would
be; The Theory of Exclusive Relativity. Any exclusive theory that prohibits the use of data can’t be as good as a
theory that is inclusive.  We must include all relevant data and information to achieve accurate results. There is a
hierarchy in the relationship of all objects.  There are many variables which make all relativity considerations
complex.  Hence, The Theory of Complex and Hierarchy of Relativity.


Sure, relativity is real and a point of reference is required to understand the relationship between and among
objects.  Albert talks about objects at rest.  Nothing is at rest.  Most people understand that nothing is at rest. All
things are moving at all times. Any movement of any object impacts the movement of one or more other objects.
Albert talks of time having no meaning because he specifically omits data that allows proof that simultaneous events
are simultaneous. Now, people have an excuse for faulty conclusions of experimental activity because they can claim
time changed. The same applies to bending space.  Time and space are constant while objects move through time to
different places in space. There is a hierarchy to the relationship of objects.  Further, that relationship has simple as
well as complex considerations.   


Most technological advancements is not impacted by the limited thinking imposed by Albert’s theory. To some extent
the things I present should be so obvious that it seems almost absurd to write them. Unfortunately, belief in theory
based on illusion presented as fact remains regardless of the advancements in experience that have been achieved
in the past 100 years. In day to day activity for most people, this paper may not have much if any impact. For most
scientific work, reality already replaced illusion. The largest impact may be to the philosophy of physics. It is time to
break off the shackles of limited thinking.


Albert says: “Of course the conviction of the truth of geometrical propositions in this sense is founded exclusively on
rather incomplete experience.”


Said another way, according to Albert, if your experience is limited, a false conclusion may be considered to be fact.  
People see the magician trick. If they do not know it is a trick, they think it is truth. According to Albert, the lack of
experience by the observer turns the magician trick into reality so the magician has supper natural power. So we see
the support for the General Theory of Relativity and the Special Theory of Relativity is firmly established on the
proposition that truth is not true because of incomplete experience. Then Albert asserts that illusions are true even
though those illusions are specifically based on incomplete experience and incomplete data. Those arguments are
very philosophical but not scientific. That is not good science.


In his paper, Albert proceeds to entertain and deflect readers with a series of illusions in the form of thought
experiments that specifically limit the experience or information that applies to the experiment.  We consistently see
that pertinent data is either omitted or essentially prohibited. Then we see extraneous verbiage that supposedly
confirms his theory. Albert’s paper is considered by many people to be very complex and detailed. It is not complex.  
It is filled with extraneous material which creates fog or diversion from the pertinent.


It is my contention that truth is truth while illusion is just illusion.  It should be accepted that limited experience and
limited information will likely lead a person to a false conclusion.  It should also be accepted that intentionally omitting
material information will most likely lead a person to a false conclusion.  


In computers storage data is either 0 or 1.  But Albert implies that 0 may not be 0 and 1 may not be 1. I must state
that on the surface, some computer storage may be 0 while traces of residual magnetism may retain a prior condition
that may be 1. A less experienced person, who knows that pressing delete will not change the memory, might
conclude that they could write over the old data thus convert the 0 and 1 strings to other 0 and 1 strings.  That
person’s conclusion is not true because they did not know the truth. Experienced people may be able to retrieve the
data that was written over by measuring trace residual magnetism. This example reenforces the importance of fully
analyzing a situation and considering all the possibilities.  I will use this type of analysis on the illusions of Albert’s
theories and conclusively prove that his illusions are purely illusion, not truth.


Albert used the technique of thought experiments that was employed by Galileo years earlier. Thought experiments
are of value to establish a path of thinking. Unfortunately; Albert distorted the conditions and the results of his
thought experiments to arrive at thought conclusions that verifies his opinion. The thought experiments represent
events that: if they could occur, they would deliver the supposed results. However; they must be thoroughly
examined and all implicit and explicit conditions and variables must be included.  Failure to do so will result in false
conclusions. I will show that Albert specifically omitted real variables and conditions. I deliver inclusive thought
experiments that specifically seek as much information as possible to arrive at inclusive data and conclusions. I strive
to eliminate limited perception to seek a greater opportunity to arrive at a more real result.   


Relativity of moving bodies


Most informed people would agree that the earth spins on it’s axis giving us night and day. It also rotates around the
sun giving us years. Most people would agree that long ago, uninformed people thought the earth was not moving
while other things moved around the earth which was the center. The false conclusion of the past was because
people had limited experience and limited data.. Today we have more experience and more data.  As a result, most
people accept the movement of the earth around the sun.  Still, only skilled people could calculate the time when the
sun would come up on each day of the year.  


Here is an analogy for the moving earth vs the earth as the center of things.  Suppose we have a child in a car going
down a highway.  The child sees an overpass in the distance and then the car goes under the overpass.  The child
says, look, the overpass went over our heads.  The parent could say, yes, that is correct.  Or, the parent could say,
no, the car went under the overpass. Although it is a small distinction, it shows the difference between an erroneous
perception and what really happened .


To take the example further, we will consider an experimental scenario. The highway has a series of overpasses for
the child to observe.  Each overpass is exactly the same distance apart.  To verify that, we put a light on the side of
the car and stop it under overpass 2. We place a device under the overpass to split the light so half of it goes to
overpass 1 and half goes to overpass 3.  Then we place reflectors under overpasses 1 and 3.  We pulse the light and
the blip is split so half goes to overpass 1 and half goes to over pass 3.  The reflectors under both overpasses
receive the light at the same time.  Therefore they simultaneously reflect the light back to the car under overpass 2.  
Since the light arrives at the same time, we know that the car is sitting exactly under the middle of overpass 2 and
we know that it is exactly mid point between overpasses 1 and 3. Next we move the car back then have it traveling
at some speed as it goes under overpass 2 where the light blips and is split.  Once again half of the light goes to
overpass 1 and half goes to overpass 3.  The reflectors simultaneously reflect the light back. This time the light from
overpass 3 arrives sooner than the light from overpass 1.  Remember that there was just one blip of light.  The only
issue is the difference of when it is observed from a stationary object VS from a moving object.  Said another way;
the only issue is the difference between the erroneous perception and what really happened.    


Most people understand that the car is moving but only a skilled person with some knowledge could calculate the
speed of the car. This is like the example of the earth going around the sun, most people know it happens but few
could calculate when the sun will come up.


With the car example, paraphrasing Albert from his paper: If the car was not moving, the child sitting in the car would
remain permanently under overpass 2 and the light reflected from overpass 1 and 3 would reach him simultaneously,
i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. If the car is moving, in reality (considered with reference to the
overpass 2) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from overpass 3,  whilst he is riding on ahead of the
beam of light coming from overpass 1.  Hence the child will see the beam of light reflected from 3 earlier than he will
see that reflected from 1.


Further paraphrasing Albert from his paper: An observer who takes the moving car as their reference-body must
therefore come to the conclusion that the light from 3 was reflected earlier than the light was reflected from 1. That
observer would thus arrive at the important result:  Events which are simultaneous with reference to overpass 2 are
not simultaneous with respect to the car, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate
system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers,
there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. It is false to state that time has an absolute significance,
i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. To assume otherwise is incompatible with
the most natural definition of simultaneity. So we discard the assumption that time is a constant.


That explanation of simultaneous events with the moving car is basically how Albert described a similar thought
experiment in his paper.  It seems that Albert needs some help. The car and the overpass and the light exist at a
moment in time and at a place in space. At another moment in time, the car and overpass and the light all still exist
but they have moved from where they were at one moment to the next moment. Just because the car and overpass
and the light moved does not change time or space.  The objects are just moving in time and space.  


When the Albert says: “It is false to state that time has an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the
state of motion of the body of reference”, he is basically correct. To calculate where an object will be from one
moment to another, we must know where the object was at prior moments in time. Most people with skill related to
bodies in motion can calculate where objects will be if the person has enough data about where the bodies were at
various prior moments in time. A person sending a rocket into space to go around the sun and some planet other
than earth must consider many possible variables in the rotation, gravity and movement of many objects in space at
many moments in time. If the person sending the rocket into space just considered earth as the reference point, they
would be viewing the movement of bodies in space like those who said the sun and stars go around the earth.  


I have shown that inexperienced observation without properly dealing with the variables results in a false conclusion.
Instead observers must exert every effort to become aware of and accept all the variables then consider their
impact.  The motion of the car is a variable and the difference between the erroneous perception vs reality can be
measured. In our car example, there was just one blip of light. When Albert failed to include all the real variables, he
establishes a process to deliver an erroneous conclusion about the Relativity of Simultaneity.   Time did not change or
become relative to a specific object.  Selecting a body as a frame of reference does not eliminate the bodies  motion.
The false perception of an individual with limited experience is not a truth.   


Albert may have been guided to his belief that time is not a constant as a result of his upbringing as a child. When
you ask people when the day begins, most people would say it begins at midnight and last 24 hours.  However
Albert would have been taught that the day begins at sundown.  Albert and I learned that the day’s length changes
throughout the year because it last from sundown to sundown. Albert would have also known of different calendars
and lunar cycles with various ways of counting months and days. Albert may have even know of one calendar, that
would have been based on one of the lunar cycles, which has 13 months of 28 days resulting in a 364 day year with
an imbalance of 1.25 days for the year which begins in the spring based on a specific crop event. Perhaps it is not a
coincidence that a week of 7 days is 1/4 of a 28 day month.  Knowledge of these kind of variables in considering time
would logically lead one to consider time to be a variable relative to an individuals perspective


When you read Albert’s paper, you will see a scenario about two lightening strikes and a moving railway carriage.
The movement of the railway carriage was not calculated when considering the timing of the observation of the
lightening strikes.  More than not being calculated, it was specifically omitted.  Albert and the imaginary rider and all
the readers of his paper know of the movement of the railway carriage.  Failing to include the known fact of the
railway carriage movement is bad science. How can a formula deliver a true result if a known factor is intentionally left
out? It cannot deliver true results.  It can deliver a false conclusion that is repeatedly verifiable each time the
experiment is conducted.   


In my example I used a split light to travel along the road instead of using two lightening flashes to travel along a
railway track.  The light is moving in relation to the overpasses and to the moving car.  The light flashed only once at
one instant in time. When or where the light is detected does not change the singular of the event of the flash or the
simultaneity of the reflections.  The movement of the car and the overpasses in space and time are variables.  We
have but one flash in time so when and where it happened does not change just because an observer moves their
point of reference. The same applies for Albert’s scenario with two lightning strikes and the moving railway carriage.  


To say that a mid point on a railway track is moving instead of saying the mid point of the train is moving is like
saying the sun goes around the earth.  To say that every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular
time is like saying the sun and the earth have different time.


Using Albert’s requirement that readers do not consider their experience and his imaginary man in a moving train car,
I can deliver Albert style prove that we are traveling backward in time while we are also traveling to a future time. As
a result of Albert style proof, we can state that time is truly just a fourth dimension that we can move through like we
can move through the other three.  


Remember Albert says: “Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told
the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an
event”.


That statement is very important to Albert’s theory and to my ability to prove time travel. We use Albert’s scenario
with the imaginary man on the railway carriage except we change it so that the two lightning strikes are at different
times.  The one the train is heading toward is after the one behind the train car. In this case the lightning strikes
occur so that they arrive at the same time for the rider on the train car. The person on the embankment experienced
time that had the train at two different places and times relative to each lightning strikes.  As a result, the person on
the car moved through space and time relative to the person on the embankment. Since we just reversed Albert’s
scenario, if you believe one you must believe the other. If Albert’s simultaneous events were not simultaneous, the
reverse description must deliver the reverse results. Events that happened at different time did not happen at
different time. Now all we need to do is simply change or extend the time for the events to reach the observer which
results in time travel.  Now I know this is absurd.  However; if you believe two simultaneous events were not
simultaneous because a person was riding in a train, and some of the information was specifically omitted,  you must
think time travel is possible when using Albert’s definition of relativity of time. Consider the light from distant planets
that is reaching us today.  Using Albert’s definition of relative time, that is not light from the past, we instead have
traveled back through time so we are living when the distant planet emitted the light.


If readers of this think Albert could change time simply by changing the point of reference or that the sun goes
around the earth or that there is different time for the sun and the earth, they may not be able to understand
anything else I have to say.  So they may not need to read further.  


One of Albert’s very important illusions has been put down. It is replaced by realty.


- Events that happen at the same time are simultaneous.


- Time is not relative to an object.


- All objects exist at moments in time relative to all other objects.


- Any movement of any objects in time relative to any movement of any other objects in time does not change time or
space, it merely changes the location or relationship of the objects to any point of reference at a prior time.  


The equality of Acceleration and Gravity


Using Albert’s logic, I can demonstrate a verifiable and repeatable experiment that shows anti-gravity can easily be
accomplished.  Get a vacuum cleaner with a top discharge opening. Turn it on then put a balloon or small beach ball
in the in air discharge.  As a result of the air accelerating around the balloon, it will be suspended in air regardless of
the pull of gravity.  Now we will use Albert’s technique of specifically excluding experience. We will now forget the fact
that we know the moving air is pushing up on the balloon. The effect of gravity has been eliminated which means we
have created anti-gravity.  Therefore; I have proven that acceleration is equivalent to anti-gravity.  


But wait, I did it again.  I gave the counter illusion before I gave Albert’s illusion. Now I will deal with what has been
referred to as the accelerating elevator in space.  In that example, Albert goes to great lengths to build a scenario
about a person in an accelerating room in some imaginary deep space area.  Some mysterious way, a person who
knows about gravity on earth is magically situated in the imaginary room.  To get the person to the room would
require space travel that is many times the speed of light. Also, to have the room accelerating at such a speed to
represent earth gravity would also end up with a craft that must be able to go many times the speed of light.  
Remember Albert said the room is accelerating.  Others have calculated to show that the craft would accelerate at 32
feet per second.  That is not moving at 32 feet per second, it is accelerating at that rate.  In just a few seconds it
would be moving many times 32 feet per second and it still needs to continue to accelerate. Perhaps we need to
modify Albert’s scenario to have the room being pushed since the craft that pulls it may have a significant exhaust
that may burn the rope.  


Here are some highlight in the scenario where Albert says:  


Gravitation naturally does not exist for this observer.


The chest together with the observer then begin to move "upwards" with a uniformly accelerated motion. In course
of time their velocity will reach unheard-of values -- provided that we are viewing all this from another reference-body
which is not being pulled with a rope.


He is then standing in the chest in exactly the same way as anyone stands in a room of a home on our earth.


Relying on his knowledge of the gravitational field (as it was discussed in the preceding section), the man in the
chest will thus come to the conclusion that he and the chest are in a gravitational field which is constant with regard
to time.


Ought we to smile at the man and say that he errs in his conclusion? I do not believe we ought to if we wish to
remain consistent; we must rather admit that his mode of grasping the situation violates neither reason nor known
mechanical laws.


We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of interpretation rests on the fundamental property of the
gravitational field of giving all bodies the same acceleration, or, what comes to the same thing, on the law of the
equality of inertial and gravitational mass.


Guided by this example, we see that our extension of the principle of relativity implies the necessity of the law of the
equality of inertial and gravitational mass.


In Al’s scenario, he is creating a situation to fool the senses or create a false impression that acceleration is gravity.  
Then based on the false impression and incomplete data he claims to extrapolate reality. Albert even acknowledges
that the speed of the craft would be very fast for an observer that is not moving with craft. That point is important.  
Albert realizes that an observer on another frame of reference will have a different perspective from the observer
inside the frame of reference being studied. The external viewer may have more information that is not available to
the internal viewer. Faulty conclusion based on incomplete data is not remaining consistent.  It does violate all
reason and scientific analysis. His example harkens back to the days when people thought the earth was not moving
around the sun. We were beyond that before Albert began his work to prove a similar concept. Since the chest is not
at rest, there is no basis to forget reality to allow it to be regarded as being at rest. The meaning of at rest needs to
be clarified.  My nose is at rest relative to my head because my nose is part of my head. Moving my nose does not
move my head, that is unless my nose is firmly hit. My head is not at rest relative to my nose because when my head
moves, my nose must follow. My body may be at rest to the earth but the earth is not at rest in space. Just ask the
external viewer that Albert mentioned.  That viewer will tell you the frame being studied is moving.  We have clearly
established that the illusion of gravity does not constitute gravity. There is no basis to extend the illusion as support
for the principle of relativity.


Al says: Before proceeding farther, however, I must warn the reader against a misconception suggested by these
considerations. A gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact that there was no such field for
the co-ordinate system first chosen.


Here Al changed acceleration to gravity. That is not good science.  Just because he created a situation to fool his
imaginary person, the reader should not be fooled. The reader is an external viewer who knows the frame is
moving.    Although there is a method of simulating the feel of gravity, there is no gravitational field for his imaginary
person.


Al says: Now we might easily suppose that the existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent one. We
might also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field which may be present, we could always choose
another reference-body such that no gravitational field exists with reference to it.


By now any reader should be laughing at the absurd humor of this path Al is traveling.  He has suggested that real
gravity may be considered to be imaginary gravity while he transformed his imaginary gravity to make it become real
gravity.  I suppose he might think his magic becomes reality but any reader should not be fooled.  If he had a vacuum
cleaner like I had, he could have eliminated gravity.   


Al says: This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but only for those of quite special
form. It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field
of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.


I must agree with Al that it is not true for all gravitational fields. It is only Albert’s thought experiment gravitational
fields that convert from imaginary to real or from real to imaginary. From that he extrapolates absurdity.   


Albert says: We can now appreciate why that argument is not convincing, which we brought forward against the
general principle of relativity at the end of Section 18. It is certainly true that the observer in the railway carriage
experiences a jerk forwards as a result of the application of the brake, and that he recognizes, in this the non-
uniformity of motion (retardation) of the carriage. But he is compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a real
acceleration (retardation) of the carriage. He might also interpret his experience thus: My body of reference (the
carriage) remains permanently at rest. With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period of application of
the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards and which is variable with respect to time. Under the
influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner that their
original velocity in the backwards direction is continuously reduced.


Albert has combined two thought experiments that were explicitly fabricated to deliver a false impression or to create
an illusion. He says a man in a magic elevator does not know he is accelerating so he thinks he is in a gravity field.  
The other illusion is the man on the moving train that thinks the earth is moving while the train is not moving. Albert
uses the two illusions to define a conclusion that is supposed to represent fact or reality.  Al needs to learn a little
early math. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. Said another way, two illusions do not equal reality.


Remember when I said “That is proof that acceleration is equivalent to anti-gravity”?  Well we see that “the principle
of relativity implies the necessity of the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass”.  If that is true, the
reverse must also apply.  If simulated gravity equals gravity, then simulated anti-gravity must equal anti-gravity.  
Albert used acceleration to simulate gravity.  I used acceleration to simulate anti-gravity.  


Now if you do not like my scenario with the vacuum and ball, let’s go up in a large aircraft and have it drop very
rapidly.  We would be free falling. We are violating another statement from Albert: “It is, for instance, impossible to
choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes”.
Using Albert’s illogical process, the person in the falling aircraft would not be in a gravitational field since they do not
know they are falling. There is no apparent gravity so the free falling person can not determine there is gravity.
Therefore they think there is no gravity so there is no gravity. If you accept Albert’s scenario, the reverse must also
apply. Well, I can assure you that the person who is free falling will not be able to free fall very long before their
knowledge base of experience is expanded.


So what we have is another illusion that has been put down. It is replaced by realty.


- Acceleration is not the same as gravity.  It may temporarily be confused with gravity for the inexperienced observer.


- While the effect of acceleration may simulate the effect of gravity, the cause of each is very different.  


- Similarity of effect does not necessarily result in similarity of cause.



ON THE RELATIVITY OF THE CONCEPTION OF DISTANCE


Children in school know that you can hold a pencil at one end and move it rapidly up and down to make the pencil
look like it is bending.  Who would think they could come up with an accurate equation to show the extent of the
nonexistent bend of the solid pencil? Well Albert would. If the length of a rod changes just because it is moving, a
solid pencil must bend just because it is moving.


Al says: Thus the length of the train as measured from the embankment may be different from that obtained by
measuring in the train itself. This circumstance leads us to a second objection which must be raised against the
apparently obvious consideration of Section 6. Namely, if the man in the carriage covers the distance w in a unit of
time -- measured from the train, -- then this distance -- as measured from the embankment -- is not necessarily also
equal to w.


We have seen that Al is wrong about time moving at a different speed at different place. Now we will see how Al
attempts to say that the size of objects is different based on where the measurement is taken.  


Albert says: Obviously our problem can be exactly formulated in the following manner. What are the values x1, y1,
z1, t1, of an event with respect to K1, when the magnitudes x, y, z, t, of the same event with respect to K are given ?
The relations must be so chosen that the law of the transmission of light in vacuum is satisfied for one and the same
ray of light (and of course for every ray) with respect to K and K1.


Al later says: If referred to the system K1, the propagation of light takes place according to this equation. We thus
see that the velocity of transmission relative to the reference-body K1 is also
equal to c. The same result is obtained for rays of light advancing in any other direction whatsoever. Of cause this is
not surprising, since the equations of the Lorentz transformation were derived conformably to this point of view.


Here we see that two times Albert says the formula is designed to deliver the desired results. We all know that you
can come up with an equation that satisfies a self fulfilling scenario.  If you do not like the results, just change the
input until you get the desired results. That is called garbage in garbage out. I address deflection of moving bodies in
more detail later.   


Albert says: Place a meter-rod in the x1-axis of K1 in such a manner that one end (the beginning) coincides with the
point x1=0 whilst the other end (the end of the rod) coincides with the point x1=I. What is the length of the meter-
rod relatively to the system K? In order to learn this, we need only ask where the beginning of the rod and the end
of the rod lie with respect to K at a particular time t of the system K


The length of the rod is the same for both K1 and K.  The fact that both K1 and K are moving through time and space
does not change the length of the rod.  At a specific point in time, there is seemingly no motion of either K1 or K. An
instantaneous camera would show them to seemingly to be momentarily at rest.  At a moment later all bodies are at
a slightly different position. Where they were will always be where they were.  Because of the motion of the rod, it
may seem to be of a different length so that an uninformed observer may mistake an optical illusion for reality.
Remember the school child and the optical illusion of the bending pencil.


Albert says: If we had based our considerations on the Galilean transformation we should not have obtained a
contraction of the rod as a consequence of its motion.


Said another way: if we had used valid measurements and all the correct data, we would have had accurate results.
Instead, he arrived at a formula to quantify an optical illusion.  The obvious reality is that optical illusions will or may
cause distant or moving objects to seem to be different.  That is an obvious fact that thinking readers already know.


Albert says: As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest.


Using faulty logic and formula about optical illusions applies here as well.  Time is the same for all reference points.
He was just going after a solution to his problem instead of considering reality. However; Albert was correct when he
consider the truth that seemingly solid objects do change in size and shape. Now I must state the obvious to
establish a thread of thought.  When calipers are used, care must be taken to not over tighten them to prevent
compression of the measuring device or the object to be measured.  We know that metal does expand and contract.  
If a solid rod is used to push an object, the rod will or may compress.  The same rod may expand if used to pull an
object. The compression or expansion is not because it is moving but because it is being used to move another
object. An object that is to be moved may be deflected based on the type of material and resistance.  A feather and
marble would deflect differently. A delicate measuring device would deflect more than a rugged measuring device.  
Great care was taken to deal with the mirror for the space telescope. We do not want a faulty measuring device that
will   deliver faulty data.


So what we have is another illusion that has been put down. It is replaced by realty.  From this example, we can
state that:


- Optical illusions will or may cause distant or moving objects to seem to be different.


- When an object’s state of rest or motion is changed in relation to a hierarchy of relative, it may or will deflect to
some extent during the transition time.


- Identical object at rest relative to or sitting on other moving object will typically remain identical.


- Transition deflection occurs when changing the speed of moving objects and the deflection will vary among objects
and may remain or reverse when transition is completed.


- Deflection of measuring devices will deliver false data resulting in false conclusions.


Trajectory relative to a particular body of reference


A pilot in an airplane shoots a bullet then moments later the airplane is hit by a bullet.  Fortunately the pilot is able to
land the airplane.  The bullet is recovered and found to have been from his own airplane.  It seems the pilot shot
himself down. But how could that happen.  It is simple. After the pilot shot the bullet.  He accelerated as he dove the
airplane. As a result, he went under the bullet and past it.  Then when he pulled up, he happened to have been in
the proper location to get hit by his own bullet.  


With the aid of this example it is clearly seen that there is no such thing a trajectory that is only relative to a
particular body of reference. If our pilot were constrained by Albert’s theories, he could not have shot himself down.
Al talks about a stone dropped from train. Albert says, “With the aid of this example it is clearly seen that there is no
such thing as an independently existing trajectory (lit. "path-curve"*), but only a trajectory relative to a particular
body of reference”.


Well our pilot used his seat in his airplane as his point of reference. According to Albert’s theory, the bullet trajectory
is not independent of the airplane. So how did he violate Albert’s theory?  The reality is; Albert’s theory is wrong
again. He has it backwards.


At one point Al says: the “truth of a geometrical proposition in this sense we understand its validity for a construction
with ruler and compasses”.  In his time it might have been that a ruler and compass were the main tools for
measuring anything. Today we uses many other tools such as Doppler Radar and lasers and very high speed
cameras.


Al says: “Every description of events in space involves the use of a rigid body to which such events have to be
referred. The resulting relationship takes for granted that the laws of Euclidean geometry hold for distances, the
distance being represented physically by means of the convention of two marks on a rigid body.  


Al may have been almost correct in his time correct.  If those thoughts were to limit thinkers of today, we would not
have things like the space program or military tanks that fire a projectile at a moving object while the tank is also
moving.


Albert says: “ It is not clear what is to be understood here by "position" and "space." I stand at the window of a
railway carriage which is traveling uniformly, and drop a stone on the embankment, without throwing it. Then,
disregarding the influence of the air resistance, I see the stone descend in a straight line. A pedestrian who observes
the misdeed from the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve. I now ask: Do the "positions"
traversed by the stone lie "in reality" on a straight line or on a parabola? Moreover, what is meant here by motion "in
space" ?


Here we have Albert not including all the facts and also omitting some of the perception.  The person who dropped
the stone from the train when it was moving would see that the stone did not seem to be falling in a straight line but
(disregarding the influence of the air resistance) it would keep pace with the train. The stone would have been
dropped from the train while the stone was over an object on the track.  According to Albert’s statement, the person
who dropped the stone should have expected the stone to land on the object that it was over when the stone
dropped. As a result, the person should wonder why the object did not hit the object it was over when it was
dropped. Albert’s use of a faulty consideration of perception or an optical illusion does not change reality.  The object
and the train and the ground are in motion. I mention the ground to remind readers that the perceived ridged
surface of the earth is moving.


Albert says: From the considerations of the previous section the answer is self-evident. In the first place we entirely
shun the vague word "space," of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception,
and we replace it by "motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference.


It is bizarre that Albert says he has problem with grasping the slightest concept of space since he goes into
considerable detail about it in his papers. This looks like another case of obfuscation to misdirect the reader.  There is
no basis to claim that space and “motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference” could remotely be
interchangeable.


Albert says: The positions relative to the body of reference (railway carriage or embankment) have already been
defined in detail in the preceding section. If instead of " body of reference " we insert " system of co-ordinates,"
which is a useful idea for mathematical description, we are in a position to say : The stone traverses a straight line
relative to a system of co-ordinates rigidly attached to the carriage, but relative to a system of co-ordinates rigidly
attached to the ground (embankment) it describes a parabola.  With the aid of this example it is clearly seen that
there is no such thing as an independently existing trajectory, but only a trajectory relative to a particular body of
reference.


Here Al is combining a correct statement with an incorrect or incomplete conclusion.  It is may be correct that there is
no such thing as an independently existing trajectory.  It is false to conclude that the a trajectory is relative to only
one particular body of reference.  The motion of that body relative to others bodies must also be considered.


Al says: In this case we should be constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of being formulated in a
particularly simple manner, and of course only on condition that, from amongst all possible Galilean co-ordinate
systems, we should have chosen one (K1) of a particular state of motion as our body of reference. We should then
be justified (because of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling this system absolutely at rest,
and all other Galilean systems K in motion.”   


Here Al is making a false conclusion.  We are not justified in calling any system body “absolutely at rest”. The moon
goes around the earth, the earth and sun and so on. All objects are moving.  There is no way to identify which if
anything is at rest.  


Al says: For owing to the alteration in direction of the velocity of rotation of the earth in the course of a year, the
earth cannot be at rest relative to the hypothetical system K1 throughout the whole year.   


Here Al starts out basically correct, the earth is not at rest relative to K1 (the embankment) but K1 (the embankment)
is at rest relative to the earth.  When Al reversed the relationship it was a small distinction but it is still introducing an
error.  This is like the little boy we talked about earlier when he said the overpass went over the car.  It is also like
people who thought the sun went around the earth. In Albert’s time we had already learned the earth goes around
the sun.


We need to examine this a little further.  Consider the moon going around the earth.  If we were to attach markers
to show a pattern of the moon’s path around the earth along with the earth’s path around the Sun, we would see
the many loops as the moon travel in a logical relationship to the circle of the earth going around the Sun. If we were
to remove the marker from the earth we would see the moon’s loops without the earth’s circle.  Although it would
create a nice pattern as seen from children’s toys, it would not seem logical for an orbit around the Sun.  If we were
to put another marker on the earth to show it’s rotation as well as it’s path around the sun,  we would see a pattern
similar to the moons pattern. Now do the same with another planet and it’s moons going around the Sun. What we
see is many trajectories.  Nothing is at rest.  At any moment in time, we can measure the locations of many things
relative to many other things. It is not logical to arbitrarily pick one place and claim that the selected location is at
rest and time/space is relative to the selected place. Consider the task of calculating a path from one planet’s moon
to another planet’s moon using Albert’s mode of arbitrary selection of a point of reference and calling it at rest. It is
not logical to arbitrarily pick one planet and say it is at rest but the other planets and the sun are in motion. We can
not exclude the motion of all bodies through time and space when considering relativity.  


From this example, we can state that there is a hierarchy of relativity. Selection of a body of reference must include
consideration of the hierarchy of relativity. Space and time do not change. The locations of various objects change in
time and space.


Al says: The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative
to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The
velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c.  But this result
comes into conflict with the principle of relativity. In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it
than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuum.


This is probably the most accurate thing Albert says in the entire paper.  That is, “in view of this dilemma, there
is nothing else to do than to abandon the principle of relativity”.  Unfortunately Al abandoned reality as he
pursued a path of absurdity.


Al says: Under these conditions we understand by the time of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that
one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is
associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation.


Here Al jumps to a false conclusions.  Sure every event and time are associated. That does not make time or space
variable. Time is not different for different places in space.  Our method of measuring does not change time.  If we
have a faulty measuring device, it is not time that is faulty. Observation is more than just seeing. Clocks do not all
keep the same time.  They do not stay in synchronisation.  Even with our atomic clocks, we do not know what time it
is, we know what time it was after the difference in the clocks is calculated.  


http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/general/precision.htm


The frequency or rate of UTC is computed by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) located near
Paris, France. The BIPM uses a weighted average from about 250 atomic clocks located in more than 50 national
laboratories to construct a time scale called International Atomic Time (TAI). It is important to repeat this point.  The
worlds official time is a result of calculation based on the time from about 250 atomic clocks worldwide in over 50
laboratories. Albert is concerned with the synchronisation of the movement of hands on antique clocks and how their
observation proves his theory.  


Al says: This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the validity of which will hardly be doubted without
empirical evidence to the contrary. It has been assumed that all these clocks go at the same rate if they are of
identical construction. Stated more exactly: When two clocks arranged at rest in different places of a reference-body
are set in such a manner that a particular position of the pointers of the one clock is simultaneous (in the above
sense) with the same position of the pointers of the other clock, then identical settings are always simultaneous (in
the sense of the above definition)”.


Here again, Al arrives at false conclusions.  His statement about being able to stipulate the validity of something
without evidence to the contrary is absurd. We do not accept something just because someone said it is true.  We
look for evidence that it is true. Al is arriving at false conclusions about time based on old clock technology.  He also
failed to consider additional variations to the clock setting when they were moved. As for the settings of old clocks
being simultaneous, I showed that even the settings of the 250 world atomic clocks are not always simultaneous.  


Al says: “Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the
statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of
reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of
simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuum
and the principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.”


I have shown that Albert was mistaken related to his understanding of simultaneity.  I addressed Albert’s mistakes
about simultaneity in his paper. I showed that with accurate measurements with all the variables included,
simultaneous events are in fact simultaneous.  Our understand of time having an absolute significance before his
theory was accurate. Now due to his theory, our understanding of time is wrong and it must be corrected.  


Al goes on saying: “We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section 6, which are now no longer tenable.
In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the
carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to
the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be
considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body)”.   


As we have seen, the conflict Albert says is no longer tenable still remains.  He build a straw man based on false
conclusion that were later used to validate other false conclusion.  Time moves the same regardless of where the
man is walking.  One second on the track or on the train is still one second.  The special 250 atomic clocks throughout
the world fairly accurately measure the same second at each location.  According to Albert, the weighted average
from about 250 atomic clocks located in more than 50 national laboratories need not be accumulated to construct a
time scale called International Atomic Time (TAI).  


Al says: “The results of the last three sections show that the apparent incompatibility of the law of propagation of
light with the principle of relativity (Section VII) has been derived by means of a consideration which borrowed two
unjustifiable hypotheses from classical mechanics; these are as follows:


The time-interval (time) between two events is independent of the condition of motion of the body of reference.


The space-interval (distance) between two points of a rigid body is independent of the condition of motion of the
body of reference.


If we drop these hypotheses, then the dilemma of Section VII disappears, because the theorem of the addition of
velocities derived in Section VI becomes invalid.”


Unfortunately for Albert, the two conditions are justifiable as I have shown. The dilemma of addition of velocities still
remains. The Speed of light is additive to the movement of the frame of reference where it is emitted and where it's
speed is measured..  If we use a high speed camera to freeze time and all the objects in it’s view, we have an
instant in time and space.  If then after some time we take another picture to freeze time, we see that some objects
may have moved in some direction relative to others while some others may have moved relative to still others. The
camera is recording many points of reference relative to many points of reference.  Each point is at an instant in time
and at a place in space as the camera records the moment in time.  Time progresses the same for all things at all
places. The space where the objects exist at an instant in time remains the same space with or without the object at
a different time.  Movement of the objects does  not change the space. The space did not change, just because the
objects changed position in space.  A faulty observation or faulty measurement system or a faulty equation does not
change reality.  


Albert asks: “How are we to find the place and time of an event in relation to the train, when we know the place and
time of the event with respect to the railway embankment?”


This is a good question for any high school math class.  One way could include the accumulation of information by
using a laser to determine the location of the train and the person walking in the train as the train is approaching the
embankment.  Then wait some amount of time and take another measurement with the laser.  Then calculate the
movement of the objects which would allow us to arrive at the speed of the man moving inside the train relative to
the speed of the train as well as relative to the embankment.


Now is a good time to consider an airplane and an airfield. The pilot must consider the speed of the aircraft relative to
the speed the air is moving relative to the ground.  The pilot must also consider the length of the runway and the
relationship the aircraft ground speed.  Some aircraft need longer runways.  A high speed fighter needs a long
runway but it also may need to land on an aircraft carrier.  Now consider the variables.  We start with water
condition, speed and direction of the aircraft carrier, speed and direction of wind, and finally speed and direction of
the aircraft relative to all the other conditions. We can not arbitrarily pick any one thing as the point of reference and
arbitrarily claim it is at rest.  Suppose we were to say the aircraft is a point of reference and we were somehow able
to successfully take off from the aircraft carrier.  We fly for a few minutes and decide we need to return to the aircraft
carrier.  We are in the clouds but that is OK, we know how long we flew so we just need to fly back the same few
minutes to be over the aircraft carrier. Then just fly a few minutes more to be just far enough behind the aircraft
carrier so we can turn around and land. Since our experience is limited and we believe in optical illusions as being
real like Albert says, we are not worried about landing.  We do not add the speed of the aircraft carrier, the wind and
the air/ground speed of the aircraft. As a result, we fly into the wind for a few minutes after take off. That impedes
our air speed. Then we fly with the wind for a few minutes.  That accelerates our speed.  We will use another trick
like Albert uses.  We will assume the aircraft carrier did not change direction. Since our experience is limited, we do
not consider the fact that the aircraft carrier moved forward from where we took off.  As a result, we area very long
way behind the aircraft carrier because all the many associated variable are additive. If we have enough fuel and no
other problems, we might be able to search and find the aircraft carrier.  If we are lucky and we do find it, we need to
land without considering the wind speed and the speed of the aircraft carrier. Again, all the variable speeds are
additive.  They are not relative in time and space to just one arbitrarily selected point of reference. Time is the same
for all points in our scenario as well as in Albert’s scenario. Space is also the same in both scenarios. One thing that
does change in both scenarios is the position in space of all the objects from one time to another.  Other things that
may change include all the variables like speed and direction of movement of any relevant objects. It sure is a good
thing that everyone is not fooled with Albert’s paper about quantifying optical illusions. Remember that Albert was
concerned with the ability to find the place and time of an event in relation to the train, when we know the place and
time of the event with respect to the railway embankment”. Our airplane pilot has a much bigger concern.


So what we have is another illusion that has been put down. It is replaced by realty.  From this example, we can
state that:


- There is a complex hierarchy of relativity.


- Selection of a body of reference must include consideration of the complex hierarchy of relativity.


- Speed of objects are additive within their complex hierarchy of relativity


- Space and time do not change. The locations of various objects change in time and space.


- The Speed of light is additive to the movement of the frame of reference where it is emitted and where it's speed is
measured.



Now for discussion about the speed of light


I have already shown that the speed of speed of light is additive I have more proof for those readers who might
have doubt about the speed of light being additive.


Albert asks: Is there a thinkable answer to this question of such a nature that the law of transmission of light in
vacuum does not contradict the principle of relativity? In other words: Can we conceive of a relation between place
and time of the individual events relative to both reference-bodies, such that every ray of light possesses the velocity
of transmission c relative to the embankment and relative to the train? This question leads to a quite definite positive
answer, and to a perfectly definite transformation law for the space-time magnitudes of an event when changing
over from one body of reference to another.


Al is correct when he says we can conceive an answer. Well sure! We can conceive many answer to any question.
Unfortunately; the answer he came up with is wrong. As we have seen, his straw man does not stand up to modern
technology or inclusive thinking. I have shown that space time is the same everywhere.  I have shown that there is
both a hierarchy of relativity and a complex hierarchy of relativity that must be considered when changing from one
body of reference to another.  

Note added 03/11/11
The speed of light is:
- "c" when measured in the embankment frame as compared to the embankment
- "c" when measured in the train frame as compared to the train frame.
Light changes speed when it moves between frames or mediums.


Albert’s hypothetical scenarios or thought experiments frequently went back to his man in on the train.  Some
educators use similar analogous experiments that describe events with space travel and devices to measure the
speed of light at different locations.


http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spec_rel.html


We will use a scenario in which we imagine a flat place on earth with a flashlight that will blip. We have detectors in
line on the flat ground to measure the speed of light. We also have a spacecraft flying ½ the speed of light overhead
to also measure the speed of that light pulse. As a result we intend to measure the speed of light at one time for two
inertial frames (frames of reference)  moving at half the speed of light relative to each other.


Let’s look at the hypothetical.  Does it specify the spacecraft length or direction of movement? No. Could the craft be
going across the horizon of earth or must it be going toward or away from earth? Although it does say passing
overhead, that could mean it is going from east to west or it could be going toward or away from earth. If it is going
across the horizon, the spacecraft observer could see the blip of light from the side of the flashlight or they could also
see a tightly focused directional beam?    


Let’s say that the space craft was somehow so long that when the light blips on earth, one detector is a few million
miles west of the earth and the other detector is a few million miles east of the earth. They are a known distance
apart. When the blip of light on earth occurs, the light goes in all directions at the speed of light.  However, the light
going to the front of the craft is going a different direction from the light going to the rear of the craft. This more
detailed  explanation of the thought experiment includes additional details that were left out of the original. With the
details I included, we see that the light at the different sensors is really different light from the source.  The light was
emitted at one common source at one instant but it is still different energy going in different directions.  The result of
the experiment would only show the different distance the sensors are from earth when they detect the blip of light.
This is true with enhanced detail or the incomplete details that do not include consideration of the length of the craft
or the position of the sensors relative to earth when the light was pulsed. A conclusion is that we might need to
state that the craft must be going toward or away from earth to get a valid measurement of light traveling through a
single path.    


We need to examine the setup again.  It said the blip of light is to come from a flashlight. When looking at a
flashlight, we can see the light from the sides as well as from in front of the flashlight. However; we could infer that
the light is tightly focused going in one direction and that the spacecraft must be moving either toward or away from
earth on the horizon in line with the ground sensors. When the flashlight blips on earth, the light pulse will race
toward the ground sensors and toward the spacecraft sensors. When the light hits the ground sensors the
spacecraft sensors will not be in line with ground sensors because the earth is rotating. As a result, the tightly
focused light will not be going toward the space craft when it arrives at the earth sensors. In this case, the
spacecraft would not be able to detect the blip of light.


We need to examine the setup again. The setup says the spacecraft will measure the speed of the same blip. We
could infer that the same blip actually means the blip will be split with some going to the earth sensors and some
going to the space craft sensors.    


In this case, we do not need  to have the space craft on the horizon. It could be overhead  but still going toward or
away from earth. Let’s say the space craft is 186,300 miles long traveling ½ the speed of light away from earth.  
Light is chasing the craft and catches the first detector. Then in 1 second, the light moves 186,300 miles.  Since the
craft is 186,300 miles long and is going ½ the speed of light, the second detector has moved 93,150 miles away from
the point where the light arrived at the first detector.  Did the light arrive at the second detector once it had moved
186,300 miles or did it still have 93,150 miles to go?  If it arrived in 1 second,  it met the requirements of the thought
experiment and fulfilled the unavoidable consequence of the Theory of Relativity. However; if it caught the second
detector 1 second after being sensed at the first detector, it must have moved an additional 93,150 miles in that one
second.  That means the light was moving from earth at the speed of light; then it accelerated so it could travel  
279,450 miles in 1 second. If the light did not reach the second detector but has an additional 93,150 miles to go,
there is an issue with the Theory of Relativity. So now we see a paradox in the Theory of Special Relativity but there
is not a paradox in logic. The paradox for the Theory of Special Relativity is; if the light did arrive at the second sensor
in 1 second, the theory is wrong and if it did NOT arrive, the theory is wrong. Logic says the light did not arrive but
does have 93,150 miles to go.


Now we will take this scenario one step further.  Let’s have the light on earth split again with part A going up to
space and part B going to a reflector 1 mile away where it is then sent to space.  Part A hits a reflector that is
extended 1 mile from the front of a space craft.  The light is then reflected to a detector on the front of the space
craft. Part B has gone 1 mile on earth when it is reflected so it also goes to the detector on the front of the craft. We
simply made a square with light being split and both halves going the same distance and both reflected the same
amount. Both halves would arrive at the detector at the front of the space craft at the same time no matter which
direction the space craft was going or how fast it was going. Now we add some conditions.  The space craft is
186,300 miles long and it going ½ the speed of light away from earth. There is another sensor on the back of the
spacecraft.  When light part B from earth arrives at the first detector; will it then move between the detector on the
rear of the craft to the front of the craft in 1 second or will it take longer?  It must do both to adhere to the
unavoidable consequence of the Theory of Relativity. If it travels between the two detectors in 1 second it will have
traveled 186,300 miles between the two detectors on the craft in 1 second.  If it does that it will have traveled
93,150 miles further than it’s other half traveled in the same amount of time so it will arrive earlier.  


I have provided variables that may be inconvenient but they are real.


These example of thought experiments, which are not scientific experiments, do not alter the fact that many
experiments have been conducted that prove that the measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will
always give 186,300 miles per second.


The Michelson-Morley experiment was a perfect example of measuring the speed of light at 186,300 miles per
second. It was particularly good because it was conducted using a table that could turn to check the speed going
different direction and always gave the same result.


http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/michelson.html


The opinion derived from the Michelson-Morley experiment is to suppose it was doomed from the start and that there
is no aether wind. The experiment showed that light was not slowed down by going upstream. It showed that light
travels at the same speed of 186,300 miles per second which is called c.


Although that experiment was not able to detect or measure the aether wind, it did not prove the wind does not
exist. An experiment may not prove a positive but failing to do so does not necessarily mean it does prove a
negative.  An experiment needs good equipment and good people who conduct them and interpret the results of the
experiment.  Failure to thoroughly and correctly interpret the results will lead to faulty conclusions.   


The experiment did prove that light travels at 186,300 miles per second in a frame of reference that is also moving.  
It also proved the direction of movement of the frame does not change the speed of light measurement results inside
the frame.    


Suppose you are planning to conduct an experiment to measure the speed of light inside a spacecraft going ½ the
speed of light in space.  You want to have a very long distance between the points of origin to several destinations.  
To accomplish this you must build components on earth then transport them to space where they are assembled.
Once they are assembled, you have three big compartments and propel them so they are traveling ½ the speed of
light. You have a light at the back of the back compartment pointing forward and another light at the front of the
front compartment pointing backward. You have 5 detectors for each direction the light will travel.  This allows the
speed of the light to be measured at the front and rear of all three compartments in both directions. You turn on or
blink the lights and the detectors confirm that the light travels through the craft both forward and backwards at
186,300 miles per second.  The speed is confirmed at all intermediate points at the front and rear of all three
compartments. So, the light is moving at the speed of light plus the speed of the frame of reference which is the very
long craft going ½ the speed of light.  Going forward, the speed of the frame or craft is 93,150 miles per second plus
186,300 miles per second for the speed of light equals 279,450 miles per second for a combined forward speed of
the frame plus the speed of light.  The backward speed would be 93,150 miles per second.  


Note modified 03/11/11

We have a group of three small crafts that travel along with the large craft.  One is aligned with the front of the large craft,  
the second is aligned at the middle of the large craft, the third is aligned with the back of the large craft.   A flair is released
from the back of the craft.  The flair is triggered to flash.  The light arrives a the back of the large craft and the rear small
craft.  The synchronized clocks on both show that the light arrived at the same time.  The light travels the distance of the
large craft at "c".  The light leaves the small craft and travels "c" as compared to open space until it arrives at the middle
craft.  It travels "c" inside the middle craft then leaves the craft to travel "c" compared to open space until it arrives at the
front craft.  

I were standing on earth and could see the craft and the light traveling through the moving craft,.  I would see the
light from a separate  frame and it would be moving at the speed of light plus the speed of the craft.  


Now for repeatable verifiable scientific experiments with results that prove that the speed of light can be both faster
or slower than 186,300 miles per second.


All existing tests on earth show the speed of light to always be 186,300 miles per second.


The earth is an frame of reference. A building on earth is an internal frame.


The Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted on a table that measured the speed of light going different direction
related to the movement of the earth in space. Regardless of the direction of light in the experiment, nothing
changed.  This is a case of the results not being completely interpreted. One thing was proven with the experiments
using a table testing various directions. The direction of movement of the frame show the speed of light to be
186,300 miles per second when measured on a moving frame. When viewing the earth movement and the movement
of an object on earth, we must consider the hierarchy of relativity.  It is clear that the speed of the moving frame
(earth) and an object (light) moving on the frame, are additive. Since changing the direction of light in relation to the
moving frame did not change the results, the test confirmed that speed of the moving frame did not alter the speed
of light relative to the frame which makes it additive. When correctly interpreted, we see the results of  The Michelson-
Morley experiment prove the speed of light is variable.


We know the earth is moving.  There are many variables that cause the speed of a point on earth to change
throughout the day and year. We will use a technique similar to one Albert uses.  For this discussion, let’s say 55
miles per second is the speed of a point on earth where the Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted.  That
means the speed of light was emitted by an object that was moving 55 miles per second.  Then the light was
detected by a device that was moving  55 miles per second.


We know the speed of light is 186,300 miles per second on earth as measured in the Michelson-Morley experiment.  


If the earth is moving 55 miles per second, and the speed of light as measured at the moving point is 186,300 miles
per second going the same direction as the earth’s movement, the speed of light plus the moving frame of reference
is 186,355 miles per second.


A spacecraft traveling in space is not part of the room which is a frame on earth where the speed of light is
measured.  Albert has said he is aware of en external viewers perspective.  A viewer on that space craft will be on a
separate frame but will see the room on earth which is a frame moving through space at some speed.  So, the space
viewer will have an external view of the earth’s internal frame. The earth viewer will see the beginning point and the
ending point at a known distance.  To the viewer in space, because they see the earth is moving, the ending point
will be a different distance from the starting point than the distance observed by the earth viewer. The light being
measured on earth as moving in it’s frame on earth will be traveling the speed of light plus the speed of the earth
moving through space. The external viewer will see the point where the flashlight blip occurred. The earth frame will
move and the light will travel. To the space observer, the end point on earth has moved some distance in space that
is different from the known distance on earths surface. The light will travel at the speed of light between points
inside the frame while it also travels with the frame to the end point.


That is the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. I did as Al did.  That is; I explain the results of other people’s
experiments. I simply include all the facts and got reality instead of optical illusion.  I analyzed the thought
experiment more completely like Galileo analyzed his thought experiments.  


Now I will address two statements that are referred to as The Consequences of Special Relativity

The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.

The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the
laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those
observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.


Now those statements have some validity as far as they go. Let’s consider the statement about the speed of
something that is moving.  It is correct to say the speed of moving things will be the same for all observers. If 10
people observe a moving car going 45 MPH in a 30 zone, the speed of the car will be 45 MPH for all 10 observers no
matter what their perspective. The speed will be 45 MPH for the driver of the car and a passenger.  It will also 45
MPH for people in other cars that are going different directions.  It will be 45 MPH for people standing on the road. So
I agree that it is correct to say that the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative
speeds. I realize that Albert was trying to convenience readers of something different. He used an obvious statement
of a real fact to persuade readers of his opinion that the speed of light is constant.  I have shown that Albert was
wrong about the basis for his belief.  I have shown that the speed of light is additive to the speed of the emission
source.  


Now let’s consider the statement about the laws of physics.  We will use our driver going 45 MPH in a 30 MPH speed
zone.  The speed limit is 30 MPH for all drivers who are driving in a 30 MPH speed zone. If an emergency vehicle is
going 45 MPH in a 30 zone, the speed limit is still 30 MPH at that place.  Sure it is legal for the emergency vehicle to
exceed the speed but the speed limit is still 30 MPH.  Here again Albert used an obvious statement of a real fact to
persuade readers of his opinion. The “laws of physics are the same”.  He stated explicit facts but avoided the implicit.
While the explicit is accepted, carefully read the above statements from the Theory of Special Relativity. Observing
key words which are “non-accelerated”. It may be true as long as it is explicitly limited to being in a non-accelerated
frame of reference. Now consider the implicit facts that relate to the key words in an accelerated frame of reference.
Although the implicit facts had not been stated, they remain a reality. The largest fact is that nothing is at rest. There
is no observer who is stationary in a laboratory.  The observer may be stationary relative to earth.  They are not
stationary relative to the sun or to Pluto.  

OK, I know that we must have a point of reference to make measurements.  We also know the point of reference is
moving.  The moving pilot shoots at a moving pilot.  

Nothing is at rest. The earth is an accelerating frame of reference.  The room where experiments are conducted and
everything inside are part of an accelerating frame. Everything inside the room is made up of accelerating objects.  
The smallest to the largest objects are accelerating.  Your hair is made of moving accelerating objects. The device
used to measure stuff is made up of moving accelerating objects.  Now I know that I simply said the same obvious
thing several ways.  I did not say anything new.  I simply reminded readers of something many people seem to
forget.  Nothing is at rest.  Everything is accelerating.  Sure the laws of physics are the same for all objects.  The
qualifiers Albert included are irrelevant. The laws of physics are the same everywhere and under all conditions.  We
have a limited understand of those laws.  Even though we do not know all the reality of all the laws, we do have
some understanding.  We seemingly attempt to learn more of the laws.  Unfortunately, we are working with shackles
of theory that is known to be limited.    


Implicit fact: Smaller internal frames are entities that may be moving in relation to larger internal frames.   


Implicit fact: The speed of a small frame of reference (inside a larger frame of reference) is added to the speed of
light traveling inside the small frame of reference to arrive at a total speed of small frame plus the speed of light.


Implicit fact: The combined speed of the frame plus the speed of light is maintained until it is impacted by it’s
interaction with another frame.  


Any measurement of the speed of light is in a moving frame and the speed of light in that moving frame of reference
is 186,300 miles per second plus the speed of the moving frame where it’s speed is measured.  


Although the movement of the frame in space is a variable, it is more than just implicit in the Theory of Special
Relativity, it is a reality that exists and can not be ignored. The theory of complex and hierarchy relativity includes
consideration of that fact.  



So what we have is another illusion that has been put down. It is replaced by realty.  From this example, we can
state that:


- Conclusions from experiments must not exclude relevant information.


- There is a complex hierarchy of relativity.


- Consideration of a statement must address the implicit as well as the explicit.


- A statement of relativity may be basically accurate when specifically limited to omit data.



The laws of physics are the same everywhere under all conditions. There is no get out of the laws free card.


Space Time Dilatation

Space Time Dilatation is a result of Albert’s confusion about simultaneous events.  When we eliminate the myth, we
see that it is not time that dilated.  Other variables dilated.


Further examination of portions of The Theory Of Relativity

THEOREM OF THE ADDITION OF VELOCITIES. THE EXPERIMENT OF FIZEAU


Albert say he is enlightened by an experiment performed by physicist Fizeau about the speed of light traveling in
liquid.


Al says: In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation
of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with
reference to other bodies or not. The velocity of light relative to the liquid and the velocity of the latter relative to the
tube are thus known, and we require the velocity of light relative to the tube.


We know that Albert is correct when he says that Fizeau experimented with light.


http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/timeline/people/fizeau.html


Fizeau conducted experiments that show the velocity of light does not change as a result of the motion of the liquid it
passes through. Previous experiments showed that light travels at different speeds through different mediums. Now
I did not say the medium changes the speed of light.   That is included in discussion about Fizeau experiments with
light.  There we have additional documented information about the speed of light being variable.


When Al refers to Fizeau, he tries to lend credibility to his own theory.  There is no reason to take anything for
granted related to Fizeaus experiment or how they pertain to support of  Al’s theory.


The Heuristic Value of the Theory of Relativity


What does it mean to be Heuristic?  By replacing the word Heuristic with it’s definition the title of this section of Al’s
work comes into a better perspective.  The title becomes: Proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by rules that
are only loosely defined to arrive at a value of the Theory of Relativity.  This is a shrewd observation from Al. It
allowed Albert to distort reality to support incorrect conclusions.  


Al says: Experience has led to the conviction that, on the one hand, the principle of relativity holds true, and that on
the other hand the velocity of transmission of light in vacuum has to be considered equal to a constant c.


This is false. The examination of Albert’s paper leads us to see that inclusive experience shows that Albert’s
conclusions are incorrect.  An assembly of implausible thought experiments with faulty conclusions make the principle
of Al’s theory simply fanciful dreaming at best.


GENERAL RESULTS OF THE THEORY


Al says: Classical mechanics required to be modified before it could come into line with the demands of the special
theory of relativity.


Al further says: This expression approaches infinity as the velocity v approaches the velocity of light c. The velocity
must therefore always remain less than c, however great may be the energies used to produce the acceleration.


Sure, classical mechanics must be modified to accommodate the demands of his theory. As he said from the
beginning, truth is not truth. So we see that he continually substitutes illusion for reality.  Using false illusion to
support his theory about the constant nature of the speed of light invalidates his conclusion.  


FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE


Al says: The non-mathematician is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of "four-dimensional" things, by
a feeling not unlike that awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more common-place statement than
that the world in which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum.


Many school children have drawn a picture on a page of paper in a tablet. Then they have drawn more pictures that
are slightly different on subsequent pages of paper. When flipping through the pages with the slightly different
drawings, they saw a moving picture.  Using that example we could say that each page is an instant in time.


Al says: The four-dimensional mode of consideration of the "world" is natural on the theory of relativity, since
according to this theory time is robbed of its independence.


That is like saying the viewing of an individual page in the tablet example is robbed of it’s independence.  Each page
is a separate instant in time that has it’s own drawings.  If there were no independence for each page, there would
be no need to have sequential drawings.   Unfortunately for Al.  Each page in the tablet of time has different
coordinates for K and K1.  We could say that K is the lower left corner of the first page.  However, that is just the
coordinate for the first page on the tablet.  On the second page, K moved in time to be on the lower left corner of the
second page. What we see is that there is no such thing as any body being a fixed point in space time. Any reference
point also moves and that movement relative to all other points must be considered.


Al says: In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t
by an imaginary magnitude eq. 25 proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands
of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same
role as the three space co-ordinates.


Here we again see Albert inserted his imagination with the addition of an imaginary magnitude.


Al says: Formally, these four co-ordinates correspond exactly to the three space co-ordinates in Euclidean geometry.
It must be clear even to the non-mathematician that, as a consequence of this purely formal addition to our
knowledge, the theory perforce gained clearness in no mean measure.


The normal mode of consideration for the non-mathematician is three dimensions in an instant of time and things
move as time advances. People can easily understand the example of drawing on pages of a tablet to represent time
change. People do glaze over when the term time space continuum is used.  Regardless of how it is expressed, three
coordinates in moving time do not help the theory.    



THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

SPECIAL AND GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY


Al says: It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion must be
considered only as a relative motion. Returning to the illustration we have frequently used of the embankment and
the railway carriage, we can express the fact of the motion here taking place in the following two forms, both of
which are equally justifiable:


(a) The carriage is in motion relative to the embankment,

(b) The embankment is in motion relative to the carriage.


Both are only comparatively correct but not actually correct.(03/11/11) I have shown that only one is actually correct but
I will do it again in another way.  If there were a way to fix the train at a point in space, and if the train had the
power, it would have to propel the track and the embankment and the earth so that they moved in relation to the
train.  However; the train is only fixed in relation to the earth.  I suspect the concept Albert is suggesting could be
demonstrated by considering two birds in flight.  A viewer could consider either bird to be the point of reference when
considering the location of the other.  To determine the distance between the birds, it would not matter which bird
was the reference point. In that example, both birds are in motion relative to the other. The birds could be from the
Air Force doing precise maneuvers. In some maneuvers only one of the pilots needs to know where they are relative
to the ground.  The other pilots need only know the location of the pilot that is identified as their point of reference.
In this case, the lead pilot could somewhat be considered to be at rest relative to the other pilots.  The birds could be
fighters who are training for combat.  In that case, each pilot needs to know the location of the ground as well as
possibly many other fighters engaged in the exercise.  With these examples we have again throughly established
that Albert’s conclusion about the equivalence of the carriage and the embankment is not justified.


Al says: Since the introduction of the special principle of relativity has been justified, every intellect which strives after
generalization must feel the temptation to venture the step towards the general principle of relativity. But a simple
and apparently quite reliable consideration seems to suggest that, for the present at any rate, there is little hope of
success in such an attempt.


Here Albert is attempting to intimidate the reader.  He issued a challenge to every intellect  insinuating that they are
only of intellect if they think as he is guiding them.


Al says: Let us imagine ourselves transferred to our old friend the railway carriage, which is traveling at a uniform
rate. As long as it is moving uniformly, the occupant of the carriage is not sensible of its motion, and it is for this
reason that he can without reluctance interpret the facts of the case as indicating that the carriage is at rest, but the
embankment in motion. Moreover, according to the special principle of relativity, this interpretation is quite justified
also from a physical point of view.


It is correct that long ago people thought the earth was not moving. We learned a long time before Albert was born
that the earth is not stationary.  Albert has simply transferred the concept of the stationary earth of long ago to his
imaginary stationary railway carriage. A traveler on a carriage knows he is moving.  Even if the traveler had been
taken on the carriage while unconscious, when he woke he would realize, he is moving.  I suppose if he was blind
folded and had been given medication to dull the senses, he might not realize he is riding in a moving carriage. That
traveler would not be able to make any observation concerning relativity.



A FEW INFERENCES FROM THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY


Albert says: A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.
Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity
would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case.
We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity
cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of
gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).


Here Al makes a correct statement about the theory being laid in dust. That is where it should be but Al goes on to
say that the theory is correct because it is not correct.  When Albert says it cannot claim an unlimited domain of
validity, he is saying it is not accurate.  When he further says it’s results hold only so long as we disregard relevant
data, he again says it is not accurate.
NOW THINK ABOUT IT.  What would happen if a student turned in a paper
that said the conclusion of the paper is accurate if we disregard relevant contradictory data that we are fully
aware of?  Well the professor should give a failing grade to the student.



BEHAVIOR OF CLOCKS AND MEASURING-RODS ON A ROTATING BODY OF REFERENCE


In this section of Albert’s paper, he again uses a thought experiment.  He asks the reader to consider a place in
space and time with no gravity and points referred to as K and K1 which are on a spinning disk. He asks the reader
to consider the centrifugal force of a spinning disk to be thought of as gravity. Although a spinning disk simply
simulates gravity, he asks readers to accept his suspension of reality.  He says that the type imaginary gravity of the
spinning disk would not be possible using Newton's theory of gravitation. Albert then suggests the placing of a clock
at the edge of the disk and another at the center of the disk. Since the clock at the edge of the disk is moving around
the circle of the spinning disk faster than the clock at the center of the disk, he magically concludes that: “ in every
gravitational field, a clock will go more quickly or less quickly, according to the position in which the clock is situated
(at rest). For this reason it is not possible to obtain a reasonable definition of time with the aid of clocks which are
arranged at rest with respect to the body of reference. A similar difficulty presents itself when we attempt to apply
our earlier definition of simultaneity in such a case, but I do not wish to go any farther into this question.


It is easy to see why he does not wish to go further into the question.  As I have demonstrated, an optical illusion
and specifically omitting information does not change reality or simultaneity of an event.


Albert goes on to use his illusion and measuring rods.  Again, just because he creates an illusion does not change
the length of the measuring rods. He then claims that “the idea of a straight line also loses its meaning”.



EUCLIDEAN AND NON-EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM


In this section Albert imagines a table with little rods laid out to form squares throughout the surface of the table.  He
then proceeds to heat some rods in the center of the table.  This causes the squares to deform.  He then claims that
the reality of the length of things and past methods of  measurements are no longer valid. Albert then asks the
reader to specifically omit other means of detecting the effect of temperature on the rods.  


In this example, Albert’s thought experiment uses a flat surface to represent a flat space.  In my example of space, I
used a tablet with a drawing on each page.  In Albert’s two dimensional space, the heated rods will expand and
cause a concatenated deflection pressure that may go from the heated spot on the table through the rods to the
edge of the table. If the resistance is too great, the rods might bend in any direction. It is obvious that a line that
had been drawn through the rods would not remain straight after they were heated.  It is also obvious that a line
drawn through the heated rods would not remain straight when the rods were cooled.  I have already shown that
deflection of measurement devices does not constitute a valid measurement.  It only confirms that the measuring
device is faulty.  


This is a good time to mention the supposed curve of space caused by matter as proposed in the General Theory of
Relativity.  It has been described as though a heavy ball on a rubber sheet causing a deformation in the shape of a
funnel. A small ball will roll toward the heavy ball. Einstein theorized that a mysterious force we call gravity does not
cause attraction of masses.  It is, he says, the curve of space caused by the heavy ball.  Can you imagine that some
people actually bought that crock.  Just have a simple thought about a magnet or better yet an electromagnet. That
is an attraction of masses somewhat like gravity.  That alone blows away the curved space absurdity. There is no big
ball near the magnet that causes space to curve.   

Light is refracted as it goes through a lens.  The Sun's gravitational lens refracts light just as any other lens refracts light.  
It is not time and space bending.  It is light being refracted.  (03/11/11)


So what we have is another illusion that has been put down. It is replaced by realty.  From this example, we can
state that:

- Gravity does exist.

- Gravitational lens will refract light just as any lens refracts light.

- Lighter objects moving in space do not simply roll down hill to heavy objects moving in space.


THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY CONSIDERED AS A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM


It is best to summarize this section of Albert’s work with his words.  He says: Thus, if we choose as time-variable the
imaginary variable sq. rt. -I  ct instead of the real quantity t, we can regard the space-time continuum -- accordance
with the special theory of relativity -- as a ", Euclidean " four-dimensional continuum, a result which follows from the
considerations of the preceding section.


Note that Albert specifically says to use an imaginary variable instead of the real quantity.  Here we go again.  If you
do not like the results, just change the real values to what ever you need to get the results you want.  That is not
good science.  



Red shift Solar systems moving away from earth in all directions.


In 1929, Hubble found that a red shift existed and it seems to be larger for faint further galaxies. Hubble also
theorized that more red shift meant the farther a galaxy and the faster it is moving.  He claimed the red shift is proof
that the universe is expanding with all galaxies moving away from us and all of the galaxies are moving away from
each other. He also claimed the theory of an expanding universe is proof that the red shift shows the movement of
planets away from earth. Said another way, one is proof of the other because the other proves the one. So A proves
B and B proves A. An objects distance is determined by it’s velocity. Velocity is measured by taking the spectrum of
the object. Astronomers see a shift in the lines of the object’s spectrum and from the shift determine it’s velocity.
Using the velocity in the Hubble equation, they determine distance. Other people have said;  If Hubble's theory is not
correct, the distances it determines are all nonsense. So if you accept that A proves B and B proves A, then you may
be a ,,, Well, you may be what ever.  


The expanding universe theory says that all objects are moving away from earth. It also says that the earth is not
the center of the universe because all objects are also moving away from all other objects.  A person on any planet in
the universe would see the same shift as seen on earth. It is amazing that someone could think of this then repeat it
in public.  More amazing is that anyone would accept it as reality.


We know that the propagation of energy dissipates over distance.  Light is energy.  Like it or not, energy does
dissipate. Put energy in a transmission line.  It dissipates.  Put a data signal on a carrier.  The carrier and the
modulation strength of the applied data signal dissipates. It is possible to measure the dissipation.  In space it would
be logical to say that the dissipation of energy would be larger for faint further galaxies.  Using this process, the shift
shows distance. The shift conforms with the other conditions, like being faint, that indicate a distant object. In this
case we have A supports B and B supports C. Energy dissipates and distant objects are faint and have red shift.
More dissipation and more red shift indicate more distance.


Gravitational red shift is a different kind of red shift.  It is described in different ways depending on where you read.
In one case it is described as light leaving a large gravitational area will be shifted towards the red but light going
into a stronger gravitational area will shifted towards blue. A different description says that in physics, light’s energy
is lost as it moves away from massive objects, stars and black holes. That effect is described as gravitational red shift
of frequency of light longer or red end of the spectrum. Light from a weaker gravitational object has a gravitational
blue shift.


There is no proof of an expanding universe other than Redshift that is actually Interstellar reddening.

- Interstellar reddening removes shorter wavelength photons leaving behind longer wavelength photons.
- Redshift is longer wavelength associated with an emitter moving away from the observer.

Both provide longer wave length for the observer to determine,
- is the red from Interstellar reddening from interference, or
- is the red from moving emitter theory that cause the reddening.(03/11/11)

Although gravitational and expanding red shift are different, both are supposedly predicted by Albert’s theory. It
seems that people might be using a technique Albert used. Claim association  with a winner to become a winner.  


So what we have is another illusion that has been put down. It is replaced by realty.  From this example, we can
state that:

- Energy dissipates as it travels.

- Light energy dissipates.

- The dissipation of energy and light energy can be measured.

- There is no proof of an expanding universe.

- There is proof of a dynamic changing universe.


THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF COMPLEX and HIERARCHY OF RELATIVITY


The laws of physics are the same everywhere.  We do not know all the laws. Our understanding of the laws is limited
but we attempt to and occasionally do learn more. As we learn, the laws do not change, our understanding of them
changes.  Sometimes we are wrong when we change our understanding of the laws.  Some of the time we are
correct. In either case, the laws did not change, what we think changed.  We must be willing to embrace change.
What we call the natural laws may be basically correct but need to be enhanced.  Relativity is real.  It is more
complex than the accepted view.


It is not easy to considering all the variables.  Subtle changes in seemingly irrelevant places may or will have far
reaching impact. Consider the example of a table with rods laid out in interconnecting squares.  Push any rod and the
movement may be detected at any point on the table. In fact, a rod part way to the edge of the table might not be
impacted but a rod beyond that rod may be impacted.


That is the nature of space.  Nothing is disconnected or isolated from everything else.  A truck passing a car on a
highway will cause turbulence that impacts other vehicles and debris on the road as well as objects on the side of
the road.  A similar impact will be caused by a massive body moving in space.  It will cause a tension on other moving
objects of any size.  These are real variables that are very hard to identify or quantify.  When all the diverse variables
are identified and measured, their impact can be included in calculations. Until they are known and dealt with, they
remain unresolved.  That is basically it in a few words.  Any more is commentary.


Think about some bubble gum.  Pull it and stretches.  While gum is easy to stretch, other materials are harder to
stretch but they all can be stretched to some extent. Imaging a large rope that is attached to a tree. If  you were to
pick up the end of rope, you would have very little impact on the tree but you would be changing the rope.  A rope is
made of many fibers that have some give. Puling hard on the rope will cause the tree to bend slightly.  Attach a big
tractor to the rope and you might be able to pull the tree down.  What we see is that more force causes more
change in the pull between objects. Gravity and magnets are similar.  They are a result of mass and energy. More
mass and more energy applied to an electromagnet causes more attraction. More mass and more energy in a body in
space results in more attraction. Energy causes more rotation which causes more attraction. It could be somewhat
like the attraction of the lead car in a race.  The driver in the second car likes to ride in the draft of the lead car. A
vacuum is created as the lead car cuts the air leaving a lower pressure in it’s wake. Many things impact the wake
behind a lead vehicle. When driving on a highway, following a big truck will provide considerable wind draft. If there is
a strong cross wind, the advantage of following a truck will be reduced based on:  the speed the truck, the cross
wind, the distance between the vehicles, the size and shape of the vehicles, and the incline of the road. This shows
that there can be a very large number of variables when dealing with moving objects. OK, I know that Albert said in
one of his scenarios that we should not consider air draft.  


Meteorologists must consider wind when forecasting the weather. We can use the weather as an analogy for a
bigger subject. When predicting the weather, the number of known variables and tools is very large and seems to
continually grow.  We know that water temperature in both the Atlantic and the Pacific impact the weather in many
countries.  We know that wind changes from the poles to the equator impact worldwide weather.  We know that
solar flairs cause weather changes.  We may find that changes in the earth’s gravity or magnetism at various
locations could cause changes to the weather.  The science of the dynamics of moving bodies for predicting the
weather is similar to the type dynamics of moving body in space.  As I mentioned earlier, there is a complex hierarchy
of relativity of moving bodies.  That complexity applies to the weather predictions as well as to the movement of all
that exists in space.   


Think about the movement of air on earth.  We have storms at some parts of the world while other parts are
relatively calm. We have jet streams.  We have hot air rise at the equator and sink at the poles.  The dynamics of
moving air around the world is similar to the dynamics of moving water around the world.  We have hot water rise at
the equator and sink at the poles. We have rivers of water in the oceans moving the surface hot water north and the
cold water from the poles moves south.  We have waves in the water caused by many things. We know the moon
causes the tide changes. Earth quakes cause very large waves in water.  Earth quakes also have caused waves in
the ground surface of the earth. The ground waves generated by earth quakes may be several feet high. Those
ground waves do not go very far but the vibration of earth quakes can be felt throughout the earth. We know that
high land was under water.  We know that ocean floors were high and dry land.  The earth surface may wave like
water but on a very long time frame.


The type of dynamics of moving water and air do occur in space. There are hot spots in space and cool spots. Like hot
and cold air and water movement on earth,  there is hot and cold movement of stuff in space.  Hot moves to cooler
areas and cooler stuff moves to hot areas.  


The energy from the Suns radiates out and impacts objects like the earth.  That energy converts to matter.  Many
process happen to facilitate the conversion.  A tree converts the sunlight.  The earth and other planets are
continually being rebuilt by the accumulation of matter and energy from space. The earth surface is supposedly a few
billion years old.  In fact, the earth surface is being pulled under the plates at subduction zones. We do not know
how many times the earth surface might have been completely recycled by being pulled under subduction zones.  The
surface we know of  might be the first or it might be the 1,000th.  The same applies for the Suns. They are
bombarded by objects from space.  Objects from cold space are matter that the Suns can use to fuel their burning.
We do not know how much small as well as very large things may have crashed into our sun.  Too much stuff
crashing into a sun or planet may cause them to explode.  Suns would be able to integrate large objects easier than
cold solid planets.  A flower that is frozen will shatter.  The same applies to far out very cold planets.  Occasionally
solar systems will get to close together. When collision occurs, the results will be destruction on a massive scale. The
stuff will go somewhere and will sooner or later integrate into new or other existing solar systems. Just as storms
form and dissipate on earth, storms in space form and dissipate.


Albert equates what he referred to as mysterious gravity to acceleration.  I have shown that acceleration does not
equate to gravity. It is more logical to equate mysterious gravity to mysterious magnetism. Just as the strength of
magnets is different, the gravity of different objects is different. The varying nature of gravity is inherent in the
universe. The gravity on each object in space varies greatly. In fact, we know that the gravity on the sun and the
earth changes.  The sun has many positive and negative regions. While the earth has the North and South poles, we
know that the magnet field of the earth continually changes in strength throughout the earth.  We also know the
poles reverse. We know that the temperature of the earth had very wide swings until about 10,000 years ago. There
may have been some object in space that was pulling on the earth causing more of a wobble. The asteroid belt may
have been a very large planet that had been causing more earth wobble until 10,000 years ago. All of  these things
are known or possible variables that impact any study of moving objects. The degree of impact may be virtually
impossible to measure when working with very high speed moving things.  


The orbit of planets around the sun is influenced by many things.  


- In addition to the sun’s rotation, it is moving within the galaxy through space and has a forward direction.  
– When a planet is going around the sun it will be going with the forward direction of the sun about half of the time
and it will be going backward to the sun’s forward movement the other about half of the time.
– A planet that is on the backward side will be inclined to continue going away from the sun’s forward direction.

- Interaction among moving bodies in space impact each others movement.  
– Planet A will impact planet B.  Both planets A and B will be impacted by planet C and so on.  Moons of each planet
will impact each of the other planets and moons of the other planets.
– Solar system A will impact solar system B.  The interaction between solar systems will impact the sun’s path as well
as the orbits of planets and moons among the solar systems.
– Galaxies will impact other galaxies. The interaction between galaxies will impact the solar systems and planets and
moons of the various galaxies.  


- The universal interaction between all matter and energy and space will impact all other universal matter and energy
and space.

- The influence of events that happened long ago will remain for very long time.  
– The influence of collision of planets and solar systems and galaxies of long ago will remain for a very long time.
– Abnormalities from the various times the many objects in solar systems and galaxies were formed will remain for a
long time.
– Objects continually form and collide and reform and move and collide and it goes on.
– Massive collisions cast off great energy and pull or push both hot and cold objects resulting in formation of new
solar systems with hot moons and planets that cool and may eventually have life.

– Colder objects are fragile and may shatter when impacted by various sizes of moving objects.

- Shattered objects will be pulled into larger moving objects including Suns.


- Hotter objects have more internal rotation and very diverse unstable magnet fields and stronger
gravity.  
– Hotter objects are very fluid and easily absorb various moving objects that randomly impact or are pulled into
them.  
– Hotter objects expel energy in the form of visible light and light outside the visible spectrum.  
– The expelled energy is absorbed and reflected by other bodies in space.
– The absorbed energy may convert to matter as it interacts with the receiving body.   


- There are three major types of influence
– Direct, this includes the moon relation to earth and earths relation to the sun. This level also includes objects on or
within larger moving objects.  This includes things like the sun and moons pull on earth’s water and magma.  It also
includes pull of the moon on people and particles in an accelerator.  
– Indirect, this includes Earth’s moon related to Saturn’s moon and Earth’s movement around the sun related to
other planet’s movement around the sun. Indirect influence reaches from the distant planet’s impact on earth’s water
and magma as well as possibly to particles in an accelerator on earth.
– Almost Imperceptible, this includes extreme things like Earth’s moon’s relation to a moon in another solar system.
This level of may reach from other massive solar system to particles in an accelerator on earth.


Space and time are endless and constant. Stuff moves in time and space. Space is not empty and the density varies.
We refer to the distance between objects as space. In fact: space is not only between things, it is also within things.
A box has space inside. Put a box inside a box. The outer box has space inside that is filled with stuff that includes
the smaller box as well as the space inside the small box and the space between the boxes. On earth we know there
is air inside the boxes. There is also stuff between the planets and suns. We have measured some of it as light
energy.


CONCLUSION


It is not difficult to prove that Albert’s theories are wrong. It is only difficult to convince others to consider the
possibility he may be wrong then to get them to be open minded and examine the theories and the opposing facts.
Anyone who reads his work with an open mind could not accept the pillars from his thought experiments. I have
simply done some work to ease the effort for others.  I have examined the pillars. They effectively fall under their
own weight. I have shown that simultaneous events do in fact happen at the same time.  Without that pillar, the
claim of time being variable is easily proven false.  With those two pillars removed, the claim that the speed of light is
constant is easily proven false. I proved that gravity and acceleration are not the same. Without the pillars, the
conclusions based on the pillars are not viable.


Calling something a theory of relativity is a real grabber.  Sure all things are relative. The seemingly complexity of the
paper also is a grabber. People naturally consider volume or complexity to be proof of truth.  Many times we hear
people say Keep It Short and Simple. Unfortunately, short and simple is seen as not worthy of consideration.  We
also know that people resist change.  It is easier to just leave things the way they are because it is comfortable even
if it could be improved.  Every day we delay correcting obvious problems. As a result, we delay making progress.



Appendix A


Stuff wants to be at rest in a balanced place in space. There are imbalances between the available space and the
available stuff (matter and energy). Movement occurs between space with too little stuff and space with too much
stuff.  That movement causes heat which causes more concentrated competition between stuff and space.
Conversion of matter to energy causes movement consisting of expelled energy and rotation of objects resulting in
force that pulls objects.  The moon wants to go straight but the earth pulls the moon resulting in rotation.  Just as
wind draft from a truck pulls the following car and a second car pulls the third car.  The forward movement of the
truck compresses the air in front.  An object in front of or to the side of the truck would be impacted by the leading
compression. The push at the front is not as great as the push at the side. The pull to fill the void behind is the
greatest impact.  Similarly the push and pull between moving objects in space varies. Strong vacuum rotation pull of
large objects causes concentration of stuff.  


Eliminate the attraction force and things disperse.  Consider entropy carried out to the fullest extent. Consider a
condition where the degree of disorder or randomness in the system is so complete that the smallest things have
broken down to become less than a filmy dry mush. Consider that condition to be such that there is a total
unavailability of thermal energy.  Consider that the condition may have existed after the end of the last time before
this time.  You see, if there was a beginning of time, there was something before the beginning of time. In other
words.  There was no beginning. I know that is a condition that some people cannot accept. So how about saying
there was an end and a new beginning.  This beginning could have been the above total entropy state of all at
complete rest.  Except for the existence of an imbalance.  There might be too much stuff for the space or there might
not be enough stuff. In either case, the imbalance would result in something we could say is similar to musical chairs.
Stuff moves around seeking a comfortable place to rest. There is not enough chairs so there is tension. That tension
would be felt throughout the universe.  Things would again begin to move.  From that little quiver, the competition for
a place to rest competing with the competition to fill the empty space continued to what we have now.  This
continually changing condition of competition for stuff to fit in space evolves as stuff and energy move around and
around. Consider that this movement will continue until the end of time which will be just before the beginning of the
next time.  






Originally named Essay with proof that debunks The General Theory of Relativity and The Special Theory of
Relativity.

Copyright © 2007 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
Essay

THE THEORY OF COMPLEX and HIERARCHY of RELATIVITY

If you have not read Einstein's paper on relativity,  how can you
argue it's merit?  The following is an examination of Einstein's
relativity.