Einstein's flaw explained


Don E. Sprague

Copyright All rights reserved 08 August, 2010,  updated, 10 Sep 2010, 12, Sep 2010, 03, Nov 2010
Based on 2007 original copyright work.  


Introduction:

Since Einstein's theories were first accepted, the science community has always said that his theories are the most
accurate of all flawed theories. Obviously a flawed theory is just another wrong theory.

Einstein's flaw begins with his train thought experiment with a person who does not know they are on a moving train so
the don't use all the facts when considering origin times of simultaneous lightning strike.  When the person uses all the
data, they can calculate the speed and distance of the train to verify the simultaneous time of the lightning strikes.

Einstein's singularity flaw is a result of the initial error introduced in section 9 of his paper. Eliminate the beginning of the
error in section 9 results in elimination of the singularity flaw at the end.   


Classical Mechanics (CM) was considered to be incomplete.  After Einstein,  CM ic considered to be flawed because it does
not conform with Einstein's known wrong theory.


Classical hierarchy Relativity (ChR) builds on CM to interpret all light speed experiments show that the speed of light is
constant in the frame where it is measured regardless of the speed of the frame.  As such, the speed of light is relative to
the frame just as the speed of sound is relative to the frame regardless of the speed of the frame.  This returns us to CM
constant space with all stuff dynamically moving in space.  It also returns us to time progressing or building on it's self at a
constant rate.  Clocks accuracy is also relative to the inertial frame.  Thus,  frame or clock acceleration causes clock errors.  
Since the laws of nature and the laws of physics are the same in all frames at all times regardless of motion,  an observer
can work equally well in the observation frame or in a target observed frame.  The Galilean transformation is 100%
accurate for transformation between frames.  All past stellar data confirms that progression of time is constant on earth
regardless of the continual acceleration of the earth as it moves through the universe.  

In ChR, the observer and observed frame formula for the length of space, time and distance is exactly the same.  The
Galilean Transformation is used to translate relative observer and observed frames values.  Einstein relativity says a meter
rod shrinks and time slows in an observed moving frame.  As such,  both opposing frames simultaneously observe the
other as having shorter meter rods and slower time.  This error results in Einstein's known singularity flaw mathematical
impossibility.     


CM is still used in daily practical application.  It is considered to be wrong because Maxwell interpreted the speed of light to
be constant regardless.  Einstein expanded the idea of constant c and gave us variable space and time. In the Lorentz
Transformation space is compressed in the direction of travel.  That gives a morphed shape of an object if the observer
moves around the observed object.  A ladder moving into a garage seems to shrink. Likewise,  the garage seems to shrink
when viewed from the ladder.   An eclipse photo is planned with stellar objects in the background.  The light from one
distant stellar object is displaced as it goes through the gravitational lens.  That means the light changed direction and
speed.  That is used as proof Einstein is correct when it actually proves Einstein is wrong.  Light can't be constant and still
change speed and direction.  We all know that light is refracted when it goes through a lens.  A gravitational lens is just a
form of lens.  Light goes "c" in open space as compared to open space. Then it changes to go "c" compared to the lens.
The data to plan the eclipse photo came from CM.  All stellar data from all observations on earth show constant
progression of time on earth.  Since the earth is continually accelerating,  according to Einstein relativity,  the progression
of time on earth must vary.   The past motion of all stellar objects is 100% accurately plotted, then future movement is
100% accurately predicted using CM.  The orbit of Mercury has exactly the number of turns CM predicts.  It supposedly has
1 more turn than known forces explain.  A reverse engineered value for the Einstein force is used as justification to claim
Einstein is correct.    




Einstein's flaw explained:


In section 9 of Einstein's paper on relativity,  he specifies that the train moves the passenger closer to one light so he sees
the light first.   Obviously, the person who moved from the mid point won't see the lights arrive simultaneously.  In section
20, Einstein specifies that the person doesn't know the acceleration is gravity so it is gravity.  He says the appearance of
absence of gravity can't be reproduced on earth.  It is done in anti-gravity simulation.  Einstein specifies that an external
maintenance force can't be used.  He uses a rope as his external maintenance force in his accelerating chest.  

Frames are equal with respect to the laws of physics:  

All objects are moving and all velocity of observable objects can be measured relative to the velocity and perspective of
any number of observers in various locations and the results from observer to observer must correlate or be related and
complementary things. Note: this law includes light, space, and time.

- The Laws of physics are the same everywhere under all conditions. There is no get out of the laws free card. The laws of
physics are the same everywhere regardless of the movement of the frame of reference.

- The choice of frames doesn’t alter the conditions of events in any other frame. Thus; all frames are equally valid in that
the laws of physics and conditions of events are the same in all frames and all observers in all frames
might be equally able
to gather the same data from the different observational frame or vantage point

- A choice of equally valid frames of reference doesn’t change the laws of physics or actual conditions. A choice of frames
DOES alter the ability to observe. A person on earth can’t observer the far side of the moon. The choice of frames doesn’t
change the distance between points or the time to travel between points.

- The choice of frames doesn’t change the distance between points or the time to travel between points in the working
frame where the points are tied together.  An inch in one frame is an inch in any frame.  A second in any frame is a second
in any frame.

- The motion of an object isn’t changed just because it is observed from different frames.  


This may be the biggest area of discussion.  

All frames including Einstein's train frame are boundless and in motion. Any point in any frame is equally valid for observing
the conditions in any frame. There is a train object that is in motion as it is in all frames.  Things fixed inside the train object
have the same xyz coordinate values over time from the train object axis vantage point.  Things inside or outside the train
object that aren’t fixed to the train object have different xyz coordinate values over time. The earth observer and the earth
light A and B points aren’t fixed to the train object.  As such, they have different xyz values from the train object axis
vantage point over time.   

Awareness or lack of awareness of the motion of the train object between the non-fixed objects doesn’t alter the reality of
the motion.  Einstein claims the uniform motion of the train object prevents the passenger from being aware of the motion
so they must come to an incorrect conclusion.  The statement is wrong.  The train object passenger can determine the train
object is in motion.  The lack of awareness doesn’t eliminate the motions. The train object observer can collect data from
other parts of the boundless train frame.  The earth based observer, who resides in the boundless train frame can provide
data to the train object passenger.  In a repeat of the experiment, the train object observer can move back and forth
between the train object and the embankment object that are parts of the boundless train frame.  The train object
observer in the boundless train frame can determine the train object is in motion.  They can confirm through
experimentation that the lights flashed simultaneously and that the train object moves the midpoint of the train object
toward light B and away from A that are in the train frame but aren’t fixed to the train object.      

When a person becomes aware of their motion they didn’t magically change from being stationary to in motion. Knowledge
or lack of knowledge doesn’t validate or invalidate a frame or change reality.  


Falling ball with sideways moving platform:

Consider one of the oldest examples of demonstrating relative motion. This demonstration uses one ball, 2 video cameras
and one moving platform. The platform moves sideways at a constant velocity. One camera is attached to the platform
while the other video camera is situated on the floor.  Both cameras are continually operating and showing their images
side by side on one or more screens.  

Standard demonstration:

The platform is moving and the ball is released from a perch. The display from the camera on the platform shows the ball
fall straight down.  The display from the camera on the floor shows the ball fall in a curve line.  Both videos show the real,
correct motion of the ball. An observer looking at the video screen can only determine that one image is of a ball falling
straight down and other image is of a ball falling in a curved path.  

Informed variation demonstration.

In my variation, tools are used to gather information.  Lines are marked on a background glass behind the falling ball.  The
marks show a top point mark A, a bottom mark B, a straight line between marks A and B.  The line between the marks has
standard ruler marks showing the length of the line between marks A and B.  Velocity meters  and event timers are
situated on the moving platform. Additional velocity meters and event timers are situated on the floor.  The event timers
record the time the ball arrives at marks A and B. The velocity meters show the velocity of the ball.  The platform camera
shows the complete viewing area including the perch where the ball is situated before it is released, and the mechanism
that triggers the release of the ball.  The glass background allows the viewers to see a mirror on the wall behind the
setup. The Mirror has length marks.  The reflected image shows the complete setup including the both cameras. The floor
camera shows the complete view of the platform with the camera, the ball perch, the marks on the background glass, the
wall mirror, the wheels the platform rides on, measurement marks on the floor and back wall mirror showing the distance
the platform moves,  the motor and gears driving the platform and the meter showing the velocity of the platform and so
on. The  Computer analysis of both screens is performed to measure the events times of the ball arrival at marks A and B
as viewed by both cameras.  

In the standard demonstration, lack of information prevents an informed conclusion.  The second demonstration with the
marks and measurements and the velocity meter and the mirrors and the motor and the gears and so on, the video
observer can make an informed conclusion.  Observers can see the split screen and the data to see the ball velocity as
considered from both vantages.  Both side images and data show the ball velocity, travel time and travel distance as
compared the platform is the same as viewed by both cameras.  Likewise, the ball velocity, travel time and travel distance
compared to the floor is the same as viewed by both cameras.    

Alternative suspended in air ball demonstration:

I provide another demonstration that also uses one ball, 2 video cameras and one moving platform. The platform moves up
in this demonstration instead of sideways as in the other demonstration.  One camera is attached to the platform while the
other video camera is situated on the floor.  Both cameras are continually operating and showing their images side by side
on one or more screens. Both record the activity from 1 hour before the demonstration to 1 hour after the second
demonstration.  

In the first demonstration, the background information is hidden.  One side of the video shows a falling ball.  The other side
shows magic ball that is suspended on air with a platform that moves up the ball. In the second demonstration, the
complete information as above is included in the side by side video images. The first demonstration doesn’t allow an
informed decision.  The second demonstration allows all observers to know the ball is falling.  

In the sideways moving ball, the Lorentz contraction supposedly has a ball that is the simultaneously the same height but
different width in both videos.  In the suspended in air demonstration, the Lorentz contraction supposedly simultaneously
has the ball different heights but the same width in the different videos. The supposed difference is as a result of the math
induced error from using frame independent constant light speed with relative time.  

This demonstration shows that the information of the observation of the motion is frame dependent. The laws of physics
don’t change from frame to frame.  Both frames are equally valid for consideration of the laws of physics.  The length of
time, distance and velocity as compared the platform is the same regardless of viewer.   Likewise, the ball velocity, travel
time and travel distance compared to the floor is the same regardless of viewer.

Observers viewing from the moving camera and from the stationary camera use the one and only same laws of physics.  
Both can determine the distance between mark A and B on the moving platform.  Both observers can use the Galilean
transformation to calculate the distance mark A and B moved between the time the ball was released and when it arrived
at mark B.

There isn’t a preferential frame for the laws of physics.  There is a preferential frame for considering the motion among
moving bodies.  

As I have said all along and as is now in wiki:

A change in the choice of this coordinate system does not change an observer's state of motion, and so does not entail a
change in the observer's observational frame of reference. This viewpoint can be found elsewhere as well. Which is not to
dispute that
some coordinate systems may be a better choice for some observations than are others.

Review the last line:  some coordinate systems may be a better choice for some observations than are others.

- The operative included words are:
better choice for some observations,
- The choice for observations doesn’t alter the laws of physics.  
There is NOT a preferential frame for the laws of
physics.  

The laws of physics being the same in a frame doesn't mean all frame are unconditionally the same. All frame axis
points have different perspectives and may have different motion but the laws of physics apply equally in all frames.
A train and a car and the earth and the sun have different motion but the laws of physics are the same in all of them.

Thus, the laws of physics are unconditionally the same in and across all frames at all times. All frames axis points
aren't equally valid as they have different motion.  Different conditions in and across frames doesn't make the laws
different.


The logic and mathematical error:   

Sections 9 and 20 are the crux of the logical error in Einstein’s relativity paper.  Other sections have logic errors that lead
to sections 9 and 20.  In his first section he begins with the truth not being the truth.  He creates a restrictive use of
frames that is different from the historical use of the Mayans and Copernicus who show the earth isn’t stationary. In
section 11 and 12 he uses the logical error of the Lorentz contraction that has time and space vary.  It is a logical
mathematical error because space contracts and time gets longer but only in the direction of travel and only when
compared to a selected observer frame.  This means that 2 opposing observers both supposedly see the observed frame
change but only in the direction of travel.  If this is true, then everything supposedly simultaneously shrinks various
amounts but only when compared to various arbitrary observers.  A car going 100 mph gets shorter to a ground observer
and it gets ever shorter to another car observer going 100 mph in the other direction.  The Lorentz contraction and
Einstein don’t have time and space as absolute but they do have the speed of light as an absolute.  There isn’t any proof
that the length of the 2 cars simultaneously shrinks different amounts based on the motion of various observers. There
isn't any proof that time gets longer for observed frame based on the velocity of an observer frame that is chosen as being
considered to be stationary.  There is a mathematical error using constant c in the  Lorentz contraction.  The same
mathematical error continues and leads to the fundamental flaw singularity with time ending and gravity going to infinity.

If Einstein is correct, then the earth and every object continually changes shape in the direction of travel based on it’s
motion as compared to various points of reference.  The length of time also changes based on the earth’s motion as
compared to various observers.  This is because the Lorentz contraction and Einstein don’t have time as absolute. That
means the length of time on earth and everyplace is simultaneously different based on the motion of each of the various
arbitrary observation points that are simultaneously chosen to be stationary by their respective observers.  

According to Einstein, 2 observers in a limited field of vision area can face each other and not be aware of motion so they
aren’t moving so time and space for both is the same. A second for one is exactly the same as for other.  If they conduct an
experiment, the time for both matches.  Then, suppose their field of vision expands and they become aware that they are
on a rotating platform or otherwise moving. According to Einstein, they magically have different progression of time and
they both shrink when compared to the other. Now that they are aware of the other’s motion, the length of time for an
experiment is different.  Simply changing the field of vision changes the length of time progression and the size of the
observed.  This shows the logic error of the Lorentz contraction and Einstein.

Relativity in general and universal clock synchronization.   

In all types of relativity there is an absence of an absolute value for things.  In Einstein relativity, time and space vary so
they don’t have absolute value while the speed of light is the only thing that does have absolute value.  In CM and ChR,
time and space are absolute while all other things move relative to other things so they don’t have absolute value.  The
speed of light is absolute in one frame but additive to the speed of the frame when viewed from another frame making it
relative to the frame like sound and all other things.    

All observers in all frames can collect and use common past stellar data to maintain a common universal stellar time clock
synchronization.    

http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/4225

[
quote=Einstein]

I am enough of an artists to draw freely upon my imagination.  Imagination is more important than knowledge.  
Knowledge is limited.  Imagination encircles the world.

Albert Einstein.
[/quote]

When you see a mirage, according to Einstein,  the illusion is reality so the mirage is water.  According to Classical
hierarchy Relativity (ChR), the mirage illusion doesn’t philosophically become water in reality. In Einstein’s artistic
philosophy, the lack of knowledge applies to allow imagination and illusion to replace reality.  In ChR, the lack of knowledge
is a motivator to the scientist to find the missing information.  

We see the view of all relativity presented to the general public is described with things like a coin that goes up and down
in a car.  When describing Einstein’s relativity, the description uses the philosophical imaginary train experiment in section
9 of Einstein’s paper.  We see the view discussed inside the physics world focusing on things like the progression of planet
orbits and distortion of light as it passes close to the sun.

The public view is that Einstein’s relativity is correct and is the only theory of relativity. The physics world view is that
Einstein’s theory has a fundamental flaw with time ending and gravity going to infinity. It is known to be incorrect but it is
considered to be more correct than any other theory.  

The public view is that relative is basically easy to understand and the theory detail are important but are for the nerds.
The physics world view is that it is all very complex.  The dual understanding isn’t justified and could be part of the problem
that prevents expanded thought to arrive at a better or more accurate theory.  Today’s technology and education gives
everyone access to more and better information than the leaders in thought from the past. The exchange of information
should foster greater discussion from the “inside expert” and the “garage inventor”.  We know that both types have given
us some of the great inventions in all areas including technology as well as science. There is an old saying that a person
found the new solution because he wasn’t trained to know it can’t be done.

An example of Einstein’s basic errors:

Einstein specifically says that: “It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the
gravitational field of the earth (in it's entirety) vanishes.”  Note, he doesn’t elude to it actually vanishing, he addresses it
seeming to vanish.  His statement is wrong.  It is possible to do as he says can’t be done.  The simulation of floating
weightless seemingly without gravity is done regularly for space travel training in a controlled aircraft dive. This obvious
violation of Einstein’s theory dealing with gravity is addressed in more detail later.

Einstein’s epiphany moment.

Classical Mechanics (CM) worked for thousands of years.  It is used today for most things.  It is so accurate that it is used
with great precession to collect very detail data that is used to prove it is wrong at the same very detail level. The reason
it is said to be wrong is because; some people decided that light was constant instead of relative.  
Time and space was
constant until Einstein decided that simultaneous wasn’t simultaneous.
He wrote his paper and gave us section 9 with
an imaginary person who moves from the mid point between 2 simultaneous events so the light doesn’t arrive
simultaneously.  Obviously the light will NOT arrive simultaneously to an observer who is not at the midpoint.

The physics world considers Einstein relativity to be correct based on a calculation of a planet orbit and the bending of light
when close to the sun. Yes,  light does change speed as it goes through a lens that happens to be the sun's gravitational
lens. Einstein’s paper has anecdotes and unrealistic analogies for justifying changing of the laws of physics.  Einstein gave
us two theories that conflict with each other.  If a chart of ways to identify a “crank” was available 100 years ago,
Einstein's paper would have been identified with all the list items.  Section 9 isn’t just a very bad analogy.  It is a
discussion about an imaginary idiot making a stupid mistake. Then it is supposed to be accepted by intelligent people
because light refracts as it goes through a lens.


The physics world looks at the calculations of the orbit of mercury as part of the proof Einstein’s relativity is correct so CM is
wrong.  The data showing the orbit of Mercury is 100% accurately collected using CM.  It is understood that the equation
dealing with the orbit of Mercury are easily reversed engineered.  It is known and accepted that reverse engineering a
formula is a valid process.  It allows Einstein's specified use of arbitrary and imaginary values to be used until the desired
results is obtained. Those are the words that Einstein uses. Throughout his paper, we always find him dealing with
thought experiment, arbitrary and imaginary values and interpretation.

Before Einstein, there were facts about space being constant and time progressing at a constant rate. Einstein changed
the laws of physics.  

After Einstein’s use of substitution with arbitrary and imaginary values and calculations, there were “INTERPRETATIONS”
about:
- Thought experiments with motion specified but the observer being unaware of their motion,
- the speed of light being constant instead of relative,
- the unknown reason for planets orbit progression,
- the extent of bending or change of the speed of light through different mediums.

The physics world knows that Einstein’s theory is built on the use of arbitrary imaginary substitution of values and
calculations.  They know it ends in a mathematical singularity impossibility with time ending and infinite gravity.  They claim
that the first and middle steps are accurate and don’t lead to the last step that isn’t accurate.

The physics world acknowledges that it is wrong but they say it is the most accurate theory.  It is obvious that it’s errors
are insurmountable. Time ending and gravity at infinity are mathematical impossibilities. Still we must examine the validity
of reverse engineered calculation to address a perceived problem.

Mercury orbit:

We observe the turns of a planet so it is what it is. CM 100% accurately predicts the turns the orbit of Mercury.  Someone
claims that CM doesn't explain the number of turns it 100% accurately predicts.  Who says that any person can design the
way the universe should act. We simply deal with reality and try to understand. We don’t know why the planets have the
number of turns.  That lack of knowledge of forces just means we don’t know or understand all forces.  

Eclipse photos:

I reviewed information about observation of various solar eclipse.  I always find words about interpretations, expectations,
errors that are adjusted for, and so on. That means, the very best results are based on interpretations, expectations and
errors that are adjusted for.  

We know light bends and changes speed as it enters, travels through and exits different mediums.  The eclipse photos
show the light from several distant light sources that has entered,  traveled through and exited the gravitational lens of
the sun.  Light travels "c" compared to open space.  When light enters the sun frame force field aka the sun's gravitational
lens, the light is refracted as it changes mediums.  

We use a series of past CM observations showing the relationship of the light sources without the sun gravitational lens.  
We use that same CM information to make calculations to show where the images on any photo should be at different
times.  Then we plan a photograph during an eclipse with some light going through the sun gravitational lens.  Then, any
deviation of position of a light sources shows the amount of change caused by the sun gravitational lens. Thus, one photo
in an eclipse is contrasted with data and calculations from prior photos from different angles and calculations.  Photos of
light that has gone through any lens can be planned and made.  
We already know a lens refracts light.  The photos of
distant star light going through a solar eclipse is simply a photo of light refraction as it goes through a lens which is as CM
and ChR specify.
  

It takes some good CM data and calculations to enable a person to take a photograph of an eclipse with specific light
sources properly aligned.   We have various reference points and 4 critical moving points that must properly align to get
the photo.  Calculations must be done to get the camera at the correct point.  As the sun and moon move, they cause the
eclipse.  There is a path of the eclipse.  The camera must be properly positioned on earth to allow the picture to be taken
when the distant light source light path is in a proper location in the eclipse path so that it can be inside the sun’s
gravitational lens.  Too far to the east or west or north or south would not give have the distant light source in the proper
position in the photograph.  Thus, the position of the camera to show the proper location of the distant light as expected
can be planned well in advance.  All the very precise detail location data comes from CM with constant space and time.  
If
Einstein is correct,  the CM data to plan the photo would not be accurate enough to plan the camera location.  


As light moves through any lens, including a gravitational lens, light is refracted.  It takes some good work to setup a
picture with a light going through a rim of a lens and to have the refraction match a preconceived influence.  Since all the
planets in our solar system have gravity, they too have gravitational lens influence on light from other distant sources.  It
should be much easier to perform frequent experiments showing the gravitational lens influence on various light sources.  

Planning a photo is a valid tool to show what the photographer wants to show. This is another reverse engineered results.
Using CM constant space and constant progression of time and relative speed of light, the camera is positioned to have
the distant light source go through the sun’s gravitational lens the proper way so that it is appropriately out of alignment
with the other light sources.  The light goes through the gravitational lens and it changes. All the light source positions are
measured using CM data and give results that match the CM expectations.  The expectations include the results obtained
through thousands or hundreds of years of observation and calculations. Thus, the historical observations about how the
universe works delivers an expectation for the results of the picture of several lights going through the sun’s gravitational
lens. It is easy to reverse engineer a formula to show where the lights will be in a picture that was very carefully planned
using historical CM data.  

Mercury orbit progression and eclipse photos confirmation:  

Reverse engineering and planning photo content works.  The use of the techniques is valid for many things. Combining the
results of reverse engineered planet orbit calculations and gravitational lens influence and planned photos don’t prove
Einstein’s relativity. It proves that CM with constant space and constant progression of time and ChR's relative speed of
light does work.  It was used to plan to get the desired results in reverse engineered calculations and reverse engineered
photos.  

Alternate possibilities:

If the speed of light is really constant, we could interpret that it should go through the sun’s gravitational field at a
constant speed without changing speed or direction. Thus, the positions of planets in eclipse photos should remain as
though the field didn’t exist.  That is, the light travel would remain constant instead of being relative to the sun’s
gravitational frame.  However; if the speed of light is relative, it should enter the sun’s gravitation field and change to
become relative to the sun and it’s frame influence.  
Thus;
- Light goes "c" compared to open space when it is traveling through open space,
- Light goes "c" compared to the sun or other planets when traveling through the sun or other planets gravity field.  

Confirmation of Acceleration induced clock error.  

http://io9.com/5646585/ultra+accurate-clocks-prove-time-moves-faster-at-your-face-than-your-feet

We know the earth is accelerating.  Just using the spin and the motion around sun,  the acceleration goes between 66,000
mph to 68,000 mph,  The sun is also accelerating.  Two clocks at different locations have different acceleration.  
Researchers showed a clear different clock reading between two optical clocks only fifty centimeters apart.  The clocks in
the mentioned experiment confirm that different acceleration causes different clock error.

Stellar motion and time dilation.  

Einstein relativity says that time slows as an observer’s speed increases. An observatory on a mountain experiences
slower time than one at sea level.  A space based observatory experiences slower time than one on a mountain. If time
slows as the theory suggests, a series of photographs of stellar objects taken over time at all observatories should show
different velocity for the stellar objects. A pulsar should be faster when observed at the slowest time speed of a space
based observatory.

This is an observation experiment that simply requires the collection and analysis of astronomical data.  Einstein relativity
predicts the stellar motion will continually be faster for higher elevation inertial observatories.  ChR with relative c predicts
the stellar movement will be basically the same rate over time regardless of the elevation of inertial observatory.


Weather on earth and weather in space.  

We study the movement of water droplets in a hurricane.  Consider the motion of one droplet in an outer portion of a
hurricane.  We can predict the droplet motion for a short period of time.  There are many forces that prevent long term
predictions of the droplet motion.  Consider a space storm. All things move with some degree of predictability.  We
calculate the motion of planets over a century to predict their future location. Comparing the ability to predict a water
droplet and a planet is similar and shows that many unknown forces in both studies cause unpredictable future conditions.
As knowledge increases, our ability to predict increases.  

This concept of increased knowledge providing better results goes against Einstein’s statement.

[quote=Einstein]
I am enough of an artists to draw freely upon my imagination.  Imagination is more important than knowledge.  Knowledge
is limited.  Imagination encircles the world.

Albert Einstein.
[/quote]



The fundamental flaw:

Einstein’s relativity is known to have a fundamental flaw that results in a mathematical singularity with time ending and
gravity going to infinity.  This is impossible.  The errors begin with imaginary experiments.  Section 9 has a stupid person on
a train who doesn’t know the train is moving so he thinks simultaneous lightning strikes aren’t simultaneous.  Then
Einstein wants the idiot train passenger’s mistake to be accepted as a justification to have time become variable so it can
be varied out of existing.  Section 20 has another imaginary person on an imaginary elevator but they don’t know the
elevator is moving so acceleration becomes gravity that goes to infinity.  The supposed proof of these absurd imaginary
analogies that lead to an impossibility singularity with time ending and infinite gravity from Einstein’s relativity is through
the collection of data using CM and ChR with constant space and constant progression of time and relative speed of light.  
Then using the very accurate CM information to reverse engineer to get desired results.

The interpretation that light is constant is confirmed by a theory that is known to be wrong with a mathematical
impossibility. We know that light changes as it goes through different mediums. The light going through the sun’s
gravitational lens or through other mediums is influenced by the medium or frame.  Thus, light is relative to the frame or
medium.  

If Einstein is correct, why don’t we have Einstein tools?

We have been using Classical relativity for thousands of years.  We use it to collect data to conduct experiments and to
make calculations to prove Einstein is correct and CM is wrong. If Einstein’s variable space and time is correct, we should
have Einstein variable distance measuring devices and variable time clocks. Would an Einstein variable distance ruler be
made of flexible material?  CM is supposedly wrong at the smallest level and Einstein is supposed to be correct at the same
smallest level. We don’t use Einstein but we do use CM.  

Let’s see the Einstein variable space time measurements and calculations to show when and where an eclipse path will be
for telescope placement. We occasionally hear of special times with special conditions to prove Einstein is correct.  If it is
correct at all levels, we should be able to prove it at any time in any experiment side by side any experiment using CM or
ChR. We should be using Einstein tools to setup all experiments at all levels at all times. If Einstein is correct, light is
constant regardless of frames.  If CM and ChR is correct, light is constant within a frame and additive across frames.  

We should use Einstein variable space time tools to build cars and houses and TVs and cell phones and computers and
everything. We don’t have those Einstein variable distance measuring devices and variable time clocks because the theory
is wrong at the singularity and wrong at the smallest level.  The supposed proof it is correct is only when dealing with
imaginary thought experiments and areas where we don’t know enough about forces influencing planet orbits and light in
gravitational lenses.

Further proof examples:

The simultaneous shrinking ladder and garage.

Einstein relativity is supposedly proven with a ladder that is too long to fit into a garage that magically fits when it
mathematically shrinks as it moves.  That is, the ladder supposedly shrinks when mathematically considered from the
garage.  The reverse also applies but is seldom considered.  The garage magically shrinks when it moves past the ladder.  
That is; mathematically it shrinks as it moves. Thus, both the ladder and the garage shrink from the view of the other.  
Pictures from both magically show the mathematically results with the ladder both being inside the garage and also
extending outside both ends of the garage. That dual reality is the mathematical results of variable space time in Einstein’s
relativity that leads to a singularity with time ending and gravity going to infinity.  The dual shrinking ladder and garage is
in the path of the section 9 error and the ultimate singularity flaw.  

Clocks lose time but also gain time.  

The Hafele and Keating experiment has atomic clocks going around the world showing less time in one direction but time
gain in the other direction. We know that Einstein predicts that time slows with movement and eventually time is varied to
a singularity where time end which is an impossibility.  Since Einstein predicts that time slows, the Hafele and Keating
experiment refutes Einstein.  The clocks in the Hafele and Keating experiment show both a time loss and a time gain.
According to Einstein, they just have time loss. Thus, the time gain portion goes against Einstein.  However; the clock gain
and loss is accurately predicted using CM and ChR with relative c. That is because ChR specifies that acceleration of a clock
will result in a clock change in reading or clock error.  Any examination of the Hafele Keating experiment must consider the
total acceleration of the clocks as they relate to the known universe.     

Consider an atomic clock experiment with the clock moved up a foot and down a foot resulting in a clock reading variation
or error.  This acceleration of the clock caused a loss of synchronization in the clock as predicted in ChR.  The combination
of the Hafele and Keating and the atomic clock one foot elevation experiments are confirmation that Maxwell/Einstein
constant c relativity is wrong.  It is proof that ChR with relative c is correct.  

The combination of the Hafele and Keating experiment and the atomic clock 1 foot acceleration could loosely be considered
to be the ChR equivalent of the Eddington observation about Einstein’s relativity where he interpreted a gravitational
lense bending light as confirmation that the time changed. In the case of the accelerating clocks, there isn’t any way to
interpret the clock gain as conformation of Einstein that predicts just time loss. There can only be clock error with
accelerated clocks as specified in ChR.      

It isn’t a matter of if Einstein is wrong while CM and ChR with constant space and constant progression of time and relative
speed of light is correct in a hierarchy of frame relativity. It is just a question of when and how the physics world will
acknowledge the truth I have shown.    

One of Einstein’s Key statement unqualified proven wrong.  

Section 20 uses an imaginary accelerating chest in space with an isolated person who is intentionally fooled or
uninformed.  Einstein equates intentional fooling people to being the same as simply not having the capability of knowing
about forces.  

Section 20's person doesn’t know the chest is accelerating. Einstein doesn’t use math to specify the rate of acceleration.  
He simply philosophies that the rate of acceleration is one that will adequately fool the person into thinking they are on
earth or a planet with comparable gravity.  Other people used math to calculate the rate of acceleration to be 32 feet per
second per second.  In less than a year,  the speed would be faster than the speed of light and still accelerating.  

Einstein says the person thinks the chest is stationary and the acceleration is gravity. He then claims that “the principle of
relativity implies the necessity of the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass”.  He claims that he obtained a
physical interpretation of his new law that makes gravity and acceleration the same.  That means that the earth’s gravity is
really equally acceleration. Thus, if Einstein is correct, we must conclude that the earth surface is accelerating away from
the center of the earth. This is put into proper perspective later.

Einstein specifically states that “a gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact that there was no such
field”. Note, he says illusion of gravity replaces reality that it doesn’t exist. Then, Einstein specifically says that: “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.”  This statement is absolutely wrong.  It is possible to do exactly as Einstein says can’t be done.  It is
defiantly possible to pick a reference body such as a space flight training aircraft in a controlled dive to simulate lack of
gravity.  Thus, the real acceleration toward the earth is a real anti-gravity simulation that completely defies Einstein’s
specific statement in section 20 of his paper on competing theories of relativity.   It is possible to pick a body of reference
such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth entirely vanishes.  That is; it seems to vanishes for a short
time. The same results can be achieved in an tall buildings elevator.

The airplane or elevator ride doesn’t actually cause gravity to vanish.  It just seems to vanish. Einstein says we can’t pick a
frame to cause it to seem to vanish.  That is because Einstein has specifically said that he can use arbitrary substitutions to
replace reality.  If we can pick a frame of reference where gravity seems to vanish, then according to Einstein’s use of
arbitrary substitutions, the earth’s gravity doesn’t exist in the controlled dive of the aircraft or in the falling elevator. Thus,
we can have two people a few feet apart with one inside the aircraft and one outside the aircraft.  According to Einstein’s
relativity, the gravity exists for one person but not the other.  According to ChR, illusion doesn’t replace reality so the
earth's gravity remains a reality for both people.

Einstein further specifies ”The objection is of importance more especially when the state of motion of the reference-body is
of such a nature that it does not require any external agency for its maintenance”.  Einstein specifies an imaginary chest in
space with an external maintenance force produces gravity.  This external force violates Einstein’s specific exclusion of
external maintenance force.   

The use of illusion to replace reality is also used in section 9 where a person doesn’t know the train is moving so they think
the lights didn’t occur simultaneously.  According to Einstein illusion replaces reality.  

Classical relativity vs Einstein’s variable space time relativity

A theory predict and experiments confirm the prediction. It allows accurate mathematical verification. The best minds in
physics say that even one math point out of place proves the theory is wrong.  

Einstein’s relativity:
- Predicts that time varies and ultimately ends in a singularity,
– It is impossible to have Zero Time and Infinity Gravity as Einstein predicts,
- Experiments agree that Einstein predicts an impossibility with zero and infinity,
- Is wrong in a massive way when time is varied out of existence and gravity is varied to infinity.
- Predicts that time slows as objects such as clocks move at faster speeds,
– Experiments refute that time slows but confirm that clocks error is as a result of clock acceleration.
- Predicts that results of experiments are diametrically opposed based on viewers perspective,  
- Is only supposedly proven correct based on 2 easily reverse engineered preconceived experiments,
- Isn’t used in daily practical applications.  

CM with relative c as specified by the ChR expansion:
- Doesn’t predict any mathematical errors or singularity,
– Doesn’t have an impossible time ending or infinite gravity problem,
- All experiments agree that it doesn’t predict an impossibility,  
- Is only considered to be wrong since light is thought to be constant instead of relative,
– Maxwell and Einstein interpret experiments that light is constant instead of relative,
– The experiments could be interpreted to show light is relative c instead of constant,
 
- Predicts that a clock’s accuracy is altered when it is accelerated,
- Experiments confirm the prediction that clock accuracy is altered by acceleration,  
- Predicts that results of experiments are identical regardless of viewers perspective,
- Has been proven accurate for thousands of years but is ONLY CONSIDERED to be wrong when light is interpreted as
constant instead of relative,
- Has been used for thousands of years and is still used today with great accuracy in daily practical applications.

Every day, billions of people use CM.  They understand the additive values defined in the Galilean transformation.  It is safe
to say that everyone reading this has used and understands CM and the Galilean transformation using a hierarchy of
relativity additive values. CM of Copernicus, Newton and Galilean relativity has billions of examples of formula and math
using time distance and space.  Even the Mayans used time distance and space to make their calendars.  Copernicus,
Newton, Galilean and the Mayans all knew the earth wasn’t the center of all things.  As such, they all knew there is a
hierarchy of relativity. The Galilean transformation addresses additive hierarchy of relativity values.  Even Einstein knew CM
included consideration of a hierarchy of relativity. He talked of the person walking on the train being additive to the train
speed making it additive relative to the ground.  

CM worked for thousands of years and is accepted today as working with great accuracy. People use CM to measure time,
distance, or speed of things.  CM is used to measured the speed of light. That is; light goes a certain CM distance in a
certain CM time. Even though the speed of light is measured using CM, it supposedly doesn’t work for speeds up to the
speed of light. That conclusion is based on the fact that every experiment shows the speed of light to be constant
regardless of when or where it is measured. We have a bit of a paradox.  CM supposedly doesn’t work at light speeds but
light speed is measured using CM.  

Since CM is supposedly wrong at light speeds, physicists looked for a theory that resolved the problem.
 Today, every
review process demands that any new theory builds on past accepted theory.
 About 100 years ago, that requirement
wasn’t an inhibitor when Einstein proposed another type of relativity.
 He begins with discussion of CM.  He included use of
the following root formula:

Distance = Speed x Time
Speed = Distance ÷ Time
Time = Distance ÷ Speed

All 3 can be known and work the equations forwards and back.

He included use of a Galilean transformation relativity additive values in a train example with a person walking on a train.  
The example has a hierarchy of speeds which included the speed of the train and the speed of the person walking on the
train.  

Up to this point, all of Einstein’s work complied with existing though about relativity and used existing laws about time,
space and distance.  

Then Einstein proposed that the laws of physics change. Time and space change from being constant to being variable.  He
suggested that an observer who isn’t at the mid point between 2 simultaneous lights doesn’t see simultaneous arrival of
the lights so the events weren’t simultaneous.
 As a result, Einstein changed the root formula to:

variable Distance = Speed x variable Time
Speed = variable Distance ÷ variable Time.
variable Time = variable Distance ÷ Speed

That is: a variable times a variable equals a constant. Time was constant until section 9 of Einstein’s paper.  That is an
imaginary experiment with an illusion of a person who isn’t at the mid point between 2 simultaneous events observing
different arrival times because he isn’t equal distance from them.  
Einstein asserted that the events were simultaneous.  
He specified that the train is moving.  He specified that a person at the mid point will see simultaneous arrival of the lights.
 
Thus, a person who isn’t at the mid point won’t see simultaneous arrival. It doesn’t matter that the observers disagree or
which is wrong.  The wrong person is wrong so their mistake doesn’t change timing of the earlier events.  A mistaken
observation doesn’t justify changing time to a variable.

For daily work, people still use CM with constant time and space.  Einstein’s relativity is used in theoretical work and is
taught in schools.  

As a result of time being variable, the worlds greatest theoretical physicists acknowledge that Einstein’s theory has a
mathematical flaw that leads to a singularity with time stopping. The error also has gravity going to infinity. Using variable
time, even the most basic calculations lead to errors.  An experiment in one place supposedly takes longer at one place
than at another.  After all; variable time in a formula gives variable times in the results. To explain the error, there is an
underlying error that is the root cause.  

It is true that every measurement of the speed of light in a frame of reference gives the same speed of light in every frame
where it is measured.  The speed of light across frames is easy to calculate using the Galilean transformation.  Einstein did
that work with a very simple formula of w=c-v which shows the speed of light relative to the train frame is additive to the
ground frame. If he had stopped there, he wouldn’t have created variable time which has a progressive error until it varies
time out of existence in a singularity that all the worlds greatest physicists acknowledge.  Here we get back to an
interpretation that might be in error.  We can use the Galilean transformation like Einstein did when he got results that
showed him his theory should be thrown in the trash as it stood.  He used relative c instead of constant c to arrive at the
conclusion his theory was trash unless he came up with some rationalization.  Thus, section 9 illusion.  Then he changed
back to using and supposedly justifying constant c instead of relative c.     

With relative c, there isn’t a progressive variable time that eventually ends.  

We have 2 theories of relativity that are considered to have flaws. Both theories have experimental evidence and math.
Since both supposedly have flaws, then both have need for examination to determine the cause of their flaws.  

CM of Copernicus, Newton and Galilean is supposedly:
- wrong at light speeds, or
- inaccurate when light is used as a constant in the formula or measurements.  

Therefore, it is accurate at less than very high speeds.  Also, if Einstein relativity is wrong and light is relative instead of
constant, then CM is correct.  

The issue of both must go back to the entry considerations.  
- CM is considered wrong because of an interpretation of constant light speed,
- Einstein is considered wrong because it predicts an impossible singularity with time ending.  This is as a result of section
9 of his paper where time is made variable based on a person who isn’t at the midpoint between 2 simultaneous events
doesn’t see simultaneous arrival of the lights. It is also considered wrong because of section 20 where a person thinks
acceleration is gravity.  A person doesn’t know information and is wrong but that mistake is modified to be acceptable for
some reason.  

— In one case, scientists interpret actual speed of light experiment results.  They seemingly arbitrarily conclude light is
constant regardless instead of relative.

— In the other case, an imaginary person in an imaginary experiment isn’t at the mid point between 2 simultaneous events
so he doesn’t see simultaneous arrival.  A mistaken observation in an imaginary experiment is considered  to be acceptable
science proof because the imaginary person doesn’t know they are wrong.  

— Reverse engineered calculation for a planet orbit matched known real results.  Reversed engineered formula for a
carefully planned photo of planet positions in an eclipse match.

— A formula shows that a ladder magically shrinks so it fits in a garage.  The same formula shows that the garage
magically shrinks so the ladder doesn’t fit.  Both results are supposedly simultaneous reality although they are
diametrically opposed.  

— The end results of a fundamental singularity mathematical fundamental flaw is confirmed from the beginning situation in
the imaginary train experiment and through every step between the beginning and the end.  

Let’s review these situations further.

All real experimental data addresses the speed of light in a frame of reference. They all show the speed of light to be the
same regardless of the speed or orientation of the frame. There weren’t then and still aren’t any true cross frame
measurements of the speed of light. We do have cross frame experiments that show a cross frame difference.  The
problem is the interpretation of the cross frame experiments or activity.  The typical explanation is that the cross frame
difference is a change in time instead of a clock error.  We do have things like GPS that makes clock adjustments.  The
clocks change so we observe the clock change. It is a real clock change.  The reason for the clock change is a matter of
interpretation ripe for discussion from open minded people.  It supposedly comes from time changing, however; it could
come from the clock inaccuracy as a result of acceleration.  Both ChR with relative c and Einstein’s relativity provide
answers.  Einstein’s variable time answer uses the progressive problem variable that leads to time ending.  ChR with
relative c uses constant time so it doesn’t have a variable that leads to time ending.  ChR with relative c provides an
answer that says the clock error is a result of the different acceleration of the clock relative to the earth acceleration
causing the clock to lose accuracy.  

Every experiment showing the speed of light has light going through a triangle as a result of the frame movement.  Since
the frame continually moves in some direction and accelerates at some rate, the triangle is never the same.  As a result,
there hasn’t been 2 identical measurements of the speed of light.  I have shown a variety of possible cross frame
measurements methods.  In each case, the argument has always been that the measurement can be interpreted using
Einstein’s relativity to explain away the results. We have 100 years of experiments and activity that is interpreted as
supporting Einstein’s relativity.  All of those activity have the same interpretation issue.  They have the progressive time
error used as an excuse instead of being acknowledged as a progressive error that leads to the elimination of time.  All of
the past 100 years of experiments and activity can be addressed and interpreted with CM and ChR with relative c as a
result of acceleration of the mechanism which causes a clock error or deviation. Light is relative as long as the frame is
inertial. When there is acceleration,  the light is out of synch with the frame until the frame returns to inertial.  The results
is a clock mechanism error.   We don’t have a real lack of cross frame experiments.  We have an interpretation problem
about all the existing experiments.  They can all be properly explained using ChR with relative c.


Using CM and the Galilean transformation, the speed of light comes out to be faster than c in a moving frame.  However,
the earth is moving so the speed of light is actually measured c relative to the moving earth. Logically the scientists could
have thought of relative c but they apparently didn’t.  They just considered light to be c regardless instead of c relative to
the frame.  

- We have an option to consider that those scientists were mistaken in their apparent failure to consider c to be relative.

All discussion of Einstein’s imaginary experiment using imaginary observers deal with how to justify the different arrival
times at the observer who isn’t at the midpoint between the events. When Einstein proposes the illusion as a substitute
for fact, the illusion could be addressed using CM.  Today, the illusion is justified using Einstein’s relativity.  Any argument
using CM and ChR is cast off because it goes against Einstein’s relativity.  A logical loop is used.  Einstein’s illusion is correct
because his theory is correct because the illusion is correct. The observers are in different frames and the observer see
what they see which is what they see. We don’t know which is correct so we accept both as correct.  We don’t use typical
science to verify, we simply accept a single observation from a single point as proof of the past time of events.  We end
with a fundamental mathematical flaw with time ending.  The flaw is in every formula and calculation from the smallest
progressing to the largest with time mathematically ending.   

- We have an option to consider that the imaginary train passenger conclusion doesn’t give an accurate representation of
the simultaneous event time.  

It sure seems that correcting a mistaken interpretation is logical.  It also seems that acknowledging that an illusion is an
illusion is logical.  

That returns us to about 100 years ago.  It reestablishes CM of Copernicus, Newton and Galilean relativity.  We add ChR
definitions explanations which specifies that the speed of light is relative to the frame where it is measured.  This
reestablished time and space as constant. All the math is already there.  The supposed daily minor sub light speed errors
aren’t errors because time and space are returned to being constant.  Cross frame speeds are additive as specified in the
Galilean Transformation.  

CM of Copernicus, Newton, Galilean and the Mayans used a hierarchy of relativity.  It might have simply been implicitly
employed without being explicitly defined. ChR simply compliments and completes CM.  Using the Galilean transformation is
a basic used in ChR.  Classical consideration of the motion of the earth and sun is a basic implicit example hierarchy
relativity.  They used a constant time and their observations and calculations were very accurate.  They didn’t have the
problem of a variable time that begins with a small error and progresses until time is varied out of existence. The Mayan
calendar is very accurate and they made it a long time ago using constant space and time.  

Copernicus, Newton, Galilean and the Mayans implicitly used a hierarchy of relativity math for hundreds  of year.  It worked
and was considered to be accurate until a mistaken interpretation that light speed was constant regardless instead of c
relative to the frame where it is measured.  

When anyone is serious about accuracy of any theory and is willing to deal with the known problems with any theory, then
progress can be made.  If you don’t know you have a problem, you probably won’t fix the problem.  For over 45 years I
have been sought after to find solutions to problems.  I know that problems are fixed by gathering information through
observation and any other possible way.  I have never seen anyone fix a problem by denying it exists.

It is a known fact that Einstein’s relativity has a fundamental flaw that leads to a singularity with time ending.  The problem
exists in every calculation from the first to the last with time ending.

It is a known fact that CM worked until the speed of light was interpreted as constant regardless.  We all know of the real
observations about measurements of the speed of light in a frame.  The issue with CM isn’t an observation about the
speed of light.  The issue is about the interpretation of that observation.  The interpretation could logically go either way.  
Constant c regardless or relative c like the speed of sound which is relative.  

Every time you point to a place where Einstein’s variable time relativity is supposedly proven, the variable time error is
there in the formula and math.  In every place you point to, CM and ChR with relative c and constant space time, there isn't
a singularity time problem.   

There a choice.  

Einstein’s relativity with variable space time and a known fundamental flaw that leads to a singularity with time varied out
of existence.  

CM with the ChR expansion and explanation with constant space time and relative c is based on thousands of years of
math and formula and good science.  It just requires a simple alternate interpretation of light being relative c.  


Part 2

There is no doubt that CM of Copernicus, Newton and Galileo worked for hundreds of years.  It still is accepted as working
except at very high speeds close to the speed of light.  It supposedly has a flaw at those speeds and is replaced with
Einstein’s theory that is known to have a mathematical singularity flaw that has time end.

Good science and peer review processes build on proven past science. They should also require the examination of the
cause and impact of accepted theory flaws. For years, the scientific community has known Einstein’s theory has a
fundamental mathematical flaw that leads to a singularity.  

Mathematical singularity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_singularities

[quote=wiki]
In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an
exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability. [/quote]

Gravitational singularity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Interpretation

[quote=wiki] Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical
theories predict that the rate of change of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign
for a missing piece in the theory, as in the Ultraviolet Catastrophe and in renormalization. [/quote]

In the Science Channel episode, Seeing Black Holes, several places they say Einstein’s theory of relativity has a
fundamental flaw. Prominent Physicists talk about the fundamental flaw.  They say Einstein’s theory is blown out of the
water at the center of black holes.  The equations form a monster with space out of control.  

When R= 0 physics breaks down.  

1 over r = 1 over 0 = infinity monstrosity.  

There is infinite gravity and time stops.  They say, this is the fundamental flaw.  Earlier they said; if one data point of
Einstein’s theory is out of place, the entire theory would have to be tossed out.  So we have a physics paradox. The data
points lead to the fundamental flaw.  The science world has basically accepted that Einstein’s theory is wrong yet they
continue to look to Einstein’s theory and other theory that builds on it for the solution to it’s failure.  

For more information about the scientific community awareness of the fundamental flaw, see:

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/speed/fgr.html

The Flaws of General Relativity

That paper comes from:

http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST AUSTRALASIAN CONFERENCE ON GENERAL RELATIVITY AND GRAVITATION, Institute for
Theoretical Physics, University of Adelaide, South Australia, 12-17 February, 1996;


THE FLAW IS A FACT.  NOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.  

It is good to find out how we arrived at this juncture.  In classical relativity, for thousands of years we had the following
root formula:

Distance = Speed x Time
Speed = Distance ÷ Time
Time = Distance ÷ Speed

All 3 can be known and work the equations forwards and back except: in Einstein’s relativity, time and space are variable
which results in a mathematical singularity flaw with time ending and infinite gravity.  That outcome is a logical result
variable space time when light speed is used in the root formula of:

variable Distance = Speed x variable Time
Speed = variable Distance ÷ variable Time
variable  Time = variable Distance ÷ Speed

- The Mayans had vast knowledge about space time,
– they used the constant time based movement of stars to make their calendars,
- Copernicus and others taught the Mediterranean area people about space, time and science,
- Galileo taught us about science. His lessons worked until Maxwell and his contemporaries,
- Classical relativity of Copernicus, Newton and Galileo worked for hundreds of years,   
- Maxwell found that electro mechanical speed aka light is observed as a constant,
- Maxwell and others interpretation gave us constant c regardless
- Maxwell’s observed constant c causes a problem with the Galilean velocity transformation,
- Shortcomings in classical relativity of Copernicus, Newton and Galileo seemingly emerged,
- Einstein expanded on Maxwell’s constant c observations,  
- Einstein relativity, simultaneous not simultaneous, variable time to address constant c,
- Einstein gave us General relativity and special relativity since one theory didn’t do the job,  
- Since Einstein;  we knew there were problems with Einstein’s theory   
- Science is still looking for a valid theory.  
- It is heresy to challenge Einstein even though physicists know it has a fundamental flaw.  

The Galilean velocity transformation

Galilean relativity worked for thousands of years.  It worked for the Mayans before Galileo thought of it. About 100 years
ago Einstein tossed out thousands of years of math and logic.  He eliminated the meaning of time and space.  I argue
against just the past 100 years of error.  I argue why Einstein’s theory doesn’t work and that Maxwell didn’t have a valid
claim against the Galilean velocity transformation.  

http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/p200/str/str1.html

[quote]In mathematical terms, if all the velocities are in the same direction (say, along x), we just add relative velocities: if
v is the velocity of the wave relative to the water and u is my velocity relative to the water, then v', the velocity of the
wave relative to me, is given by v' = v - u. This common sense equation is known as the Galilean velocity transformation --
a big name for a little idea, it would seem. [/quote]

http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/p200/str/str2.html

[quote]
The problem is, it doesn't work for light. Without any stuff with respect to which to measure relative velocity, one person's
vacuum looks exactly the same as another's, even though they may be moving past each other at enormous velocity! If so,
then the Maxwell equations tell both observers that they should ``see" the light go past them at c, even though one
observer might be moving at ½c relative to the other!
[/quote]

Just reading the above, with the slightest thought of needing proof, the statement it fraught with reasons to doubt. It
addresses inability to measure across frames.  It implies additive values but requires the additive aspects to be ignored.  
The problem with the above is the concept that both people will see the light go past them at c regardless of the frame
where the light is traveling. That conclusion is based on the known fact that every measurement of the speed of light in a
vacuum gives c.  Since every measurement shows constant speed of light, then light is considered to be a constant across
frames regardless of the frame velocity.  The conclusion is re-enforced with Einstein’s illusion.

In Galilean Relativity:

- A  person waking on a moving train is additive to the ground speed of the train,
- A ball thrown by a person on a train has the ball speed additive to the train speed,  
- Sound on a train is relative and additive to the train speed,  
- Light “was” also relative and additive to the train.

The above show the simplicity and accuracy of Galilean relativity.

The Galilean velocity transformation worked until an “observation” that light is constant in a vacuum regardless of when or
where it is measured. That is a totally valid observation.  The interpretation of the observation is a problem.  I must use a
target practice example.  The person shoots the gun but the bullet doesn’t hit the target.  The shooter puts a paper at the
end of the barrel and shoots the gun again. There is a hole in the paper at the end of the barrel.  The shooter says the
problem must be at the target because the bullet left this end properly. Thus, an isolated correct observation can lead to a
mistaken interpretation.  

Maxwell’s constant c within and across frames gave Einstein thought of changing the meaning of simultaneous and making
space time variable through the use of an “observational” illusion.  He has 2 people who disagree about their
“observations” so both are considered to be correct. Einstein’s “observation” illusion and my target practice bullet
“observation” illusion show that observations are only as good as their interpretation.


A correct “observation” and interpretation  must properly fit.  Today’s science has a correct observation that light is
constant in a vacuum regardless of the speed or orientation of the frame. The interpretation is that the light speed is
constant regardless.  That interpretation isn’t correct.  The experiments prove that light is c compared to where it is
measured.  They don’t prove it is c across frames where it isn’t measured but can be calculated. I suggest constant c when
compared to the frame where it is measured.  I suggest that it is relative and additive to the speed of the frame where it is
measured.  

Put simply, the correct interpretation of the experimental observations prove: When a person in Frame A considers the
speed of light in Frame B when compared to Frame B, they know the light is c in Frame B regardless of the speed of Frame
B.  The person in frame A knows the speed of light in Frame B is additive to the speed of frame B when considered from
Frame A.  

Thus; going back over 100 years ago, the correct “interpretation” is that the Galilean velocity transformation is valid with
the speed of light being c as compared the frame it is within but not across frames.  The bulk of my consideration is that we
basically return to the Galilean velocity transformation without the mistaken constant c interpretation problem.  

As said above, we know Einstein’s work has a fundamental flaw.  I proposes that the flaw is section 9 and 20 illusions. The
flaw is so profound in that it eliminates the meaning of space and time. Maxwell has a small interpretation problem that
causes a problem with the Galilean velocity transformation.  Einstein has a huge problem that causes both space and time
to be manipulated variables.

Before the mistaken constant c across frame interpretation, Galilean relativity was both simple and accurate.  With the
speed of light being c compared to the frame where it is measured and additive across frames, the mistaken constant c
cross frames problem is eliminated.

Using the above examples with light speed constant as compared to the frame where it is measured:  

- A walking person is substituted with light. The light and train speeds are additive.
- A thrown ball is substituted with light.  The light and train speeds are additive.  

It is simple and accurate. It doesn’t require wild explanations for illusions and ignorance of reality. It doesn’t allow time and
space to be varied to get some desired results or to end in a fundamental mathematical flaw singularity.  


Einstein’s train thought experiment in section 9 of his paper.

The issue of section 9  is very narrow. It is simply about the arrival time of lights at the train observer. First; Does it make a
difference if the train is moving?  Second: Is the train moving.  It obviously makes a difference.  Since the train is moving, it
carries the passenger away from the mid point between the lights so he can’t see simultaneous.  

The second question is basically mute for anybody who read the setup.  However; we proceed.  

Einstein begins his paper saying the truth isn’t the truth.  Then he has a train scenario with a passenger who moves from
the mid point between events so he doesn’t see simultaneous arrival of the lights.  Einstein claims that the train can
somehow be moving uniformly so the passenger is not sensible of its motion.  Then he claims the person’s ignorance
justifies his unreluctant interpretation that the train isn’t moving but the embankment is in motion.

It is clear that the train is moving.  Einstein clearly says it is moving uniformly.  He further says the indication it seems to be
motionless is based on a fantasy that it could somehow be uniform motion.  A person walks up to purchase a ticket to ride
a train to some destination.  They walk from the ticket office and get on the train.  They sit in a seat and watch as the train
begins to move.  The train rocks back and forth and forward and back.  It momentarily goes in a uniform speed so the train
passenger is not sensible of its motion.  There is no basis to claim that the passenger will for some mystical reason
unreluctantly interpret the facts of the case as indicating that the carriage is at rest, but the embankment in motion.  

Events happen where they happen.  The train is moving between the light event locations in reality. Using the train as a
frame of reference doesn’t actually make it motionless.  It only seems to be motionless.  In reality, it is in motion.   Thus,
Einstein is correct when he says the train observer is racing ahead of one light and toward the other in reality relative to
the earth.  That train change in proximity to the lights doesn’t go away by changing frames of reference. It must be
accounted for in every frame.  People were taught that the earth was fixed with the sun and all other things in motion.  
While that is relatively true, in reality, the earth is in motion around the sun and so on.  

We know the earth is a valid frame to view thing.  We also know the earth is moving relative to the sun and so on.  Thus,  
we know there is a hierarchy of relativity and that hierarchy can be confirmed from any valid frame of reference when all
motion is accurately included.

Einstein’s relativity begins with the truth not being true.  ChR is based on the truth being the truth.  Einstein’s relativity is
based on specifically eliminating the known change in proximity between the known moving train observer and the lights
just because he is to be considered to be seemingly motionless. Einstein’s relativity only works with a contradiction of
motion in one frame that is eliminated in another frame.  With ChR, if there is an observational contradiction between
observers in different frames,  then there is simply an error that requires more information to eliminate the contradiction.

ChR doesn’t have the built in contradiction of Einstein’s theory.  ChR specifically excludes the potential or opportunity to
have a contradiction in observations that is as a result of elimination of consideration of some or any motion just because
the frame of reference is changed.  

We observer things and include all the information to arrive at an accurate answer or we selectively include things or omit
things through error then possibly or likely arrive at an wrong conclusion.  

The train observer supposedly doesn’t know he is moving. The change in proximity of the observer and the center of the
lights events location is the key factor. His awareness of the change in proximity impacts his interpretation of his
observation.  It doesn’t impact the actual timing of the events. If his knowledge of his motion was important, there are
various ways to him to confirm the train motion.

Einstein specifically states that: relative to the embankment,  there is a change in proximity of the train observer and the
lights events and the lights. He specifically states that: relative to the embankment, the train observer is traveling ahead
of one light and toward the other.  

Using Light Cones:  later observations in future light cones after events can’t some how send a signals through the past
light cone to influence events that already happened in the past.  That would be like back to the future. Since observations
are after an event in the future light cone, they can’t influence the past event. Thus, any later observations don’t change
the actual simultaneous time of the past events regardless of frame.  Thus,  section 9 use of different post event arrival
times for people in different positions doesn’t influence the actual simultaneous event times.

The observer on the train concluded without confirming data that the lights aren’t simultaneous. The only information he
has is that the lights don’t arrive at the same time.  To confirm the origin time, he must have information to enable him to
determine the origin time and locations of the light events.  He needs more than one observation point to determine origin
location and origin time.  Thus he needs something like the following.  

A Very Large Array concept is the use of several people on the train who collect data from various points including points A
and B. They confirm the simultaneous occurrence of the lights events at A and B.  They also allow the train observers to
know his change in proximity to the origin locations of the lights events.  

A ground, light position system consists of regular pulsing lights at fixed locations.  Using that information, the train
observer can determine his change in proximity to the simultaneous light events locations.   

A controlled repeat of the thought experiment proves the change in proximity of the train observer and the simultaneous
light events locations.

All the data confirms that: relative to the station and relative to the lights, the train is in motion. That motion doesn’t go
away simply be changing to the train as the frame of reference.  If the change in proximity exists in any relative frame, it
exists in all relative frames.  

Most important: Einstein asserts that the events are simultaneous.  Since they are simultaneous, time still has meaning.  
Difficulty in determining through observation doesn’t change the meaning of time.  It simply shows the limitations of the
people trying to determine through observation that the events were simultaneous.  



We retain the focus on the singular issue.  There is a real impact of the motion of the train.  The observer can’t see
simultaneous since the train carried him from the mid point. There is no basis to conclude that time is variable .

Einstein fabricated 2 impossible scenarios or supposed analogies.  Neither presents a plausible or logical argument.  There
isn’t any possible realistic way to justify Einstein’s conclusion.  It isn’t possible to arrive at any valid mathematical value
from Einstein’s scenarios that require intentional ignorance of known information.  The train is moving. The passenger
doesn’t remain at the midpoint between the lights so he can’t see simultaneous arrival.  

Constant space and light with relative c

Suppose you are in a car tapping on a coin. You have the speed of the car and the coin plus the speed of the sound of the
tapping on the coin and the speed of light reflected from the coin. The coin has zero speed relative to the car.  The sound
travels the speed of sound to your ear and the light reflecting from the coin travel c to your eyes.  Now flip the coin in the
air.  The coin has up and down motion in the car but doesn’t have side or forward motion relative to the car.  The sound of
flipping the coin still goes the speed of sound.  The light from the coin still goes c. All speeds are in sync with the car so
they are all relative to the speed of the car.  Now change the velocity or direction of the car.  The coin now has other
motion relative to the car. So does the sound and the light. The speed of the coin and sound and light aren’t in sync with
the car speed when the car is accelerating.  Now toss the coin out the window of the car.  The speed of the coins isn’t in
sync with the ground when it leaves the car so the coin speed changes to the speed of the earth frame.  When you make
noise that is in sync with car, that noise leaves the car but it isn’t in sync with the ground so the speed of sound changes
speed so it gets in sync with the ground and becomes relative to the earth.  The same with light.  If you shine a light inside
the car, the light is in sync with the car and moves c inside the car.  When the light leaves the car, it isn’t in sync with the
ground.  Like the coin and sound, the speed of light changes speed to be going c relative to the ground outside the car.  
We expect that there will be some very short transition like a water wake on the front of a boat.  The transition might be
just fractions of an inch or it might be longer.
 The concept applies to light leaving a star.  Light goes c relative to the
star then transitions to be going c relative to space.  This addresses the issue of dual star with the light from both
going c relative to both stars then changing to c in space.  

We all accept that the speed of light is c in every inertial frame of reference.  Since it is c in every frame, there was a
perceived conflict with it being additive to the speed of the frame.  The solution is simple.  Light simply changes speed as it
enters or leaves a frame metaphorically different medium.  We already know that light changes speed as it enters and
leaves different mediums.  Simply consider light going from an embankment frame/medium to a train frame/medium.  As the
light changes frames, it’s speed changes or adjusts to the frame so it is going c in the frame.  


The error of time dilation is resolved.  When a frames changes from uniform motion to acceleration, the speed of light
also goes through a period where it is adjusting to get back in sync with the frame’s changed state of motion.  It isn’t
time dilation, it is clock dilation from the light not having a uniform frame speed in which to be in sync and be
constant.  

Basically this is a sort of combination of some portions of emitter theory and Euclidian relativity. The issue of light speed
being additive across frames is resolved. The fundamental flaw of Einstein’s relativity is resolved.  


How to address the fundamental flaw

Just suppose past thought is wrong about constant c across frames.  Suppose all the experiments are correct that light is c but only when
compared to the frame where it is measured.  Then the observer in a moving frame wouldn’t see the light in an adjoining frame as going
past him at c.  He would see the speed of light be c relative to the frame that is moving past him.  After all, an observer in frame A can’t
easily or perhaps can’t actually see or measure the speed of light in frame B.  The A observer can see the results of experiments and data
that B provided.  Thus, the speed of light in frame B can be c when compared to frame B and additive with B when considered from frame
A.

With c as constant as compared to the frame where it is measured, the maxwell work doesn’t cause a problem with Galilean
Transformations.   Suppose physicists were to work through the math in their various projects with light as a c when compared to the frame
where it is measured instead of the same across frames.  Consider the Galilean velocity transformation with light being c in each frame. It
has, in mathematical terms, all velocities in the same direction along x with added relative velocities.  

The sequence is simple:
- Thousands of years of knowledge.  Galilean relativity worked.  Velocities were additive.  
- The truth was the truth. Time and Space had meaning.
- We learned about electrodynamics.  
- People had problems with physical description of all natural phenomena.
- We found the speed of light to be constant withing the frame where it is measured.
- We didn’t have cross frame measurements of the speed of light.  
- We arrived at Maxwell contraction or better the Maxwell contradiction.
- Einstein took the mistake further to eliminate the meaning of the truth.  
- He tossed thousands of years of science.  
- He tossed constant space and time.
- He gave us “a principle of such broad generality should hold with such exactness in one domain of phenomena, and yet”’it is invalid for
another. In Einstein’s relativity, the events are simultaneous in the embankment frame yet aren’t simultaneous in the train frame.  


I simply restore thousands of years of science.  I apply a simple relative and additive c answer to the supposed problem Einstein and
others have. The speed of light is experimentally proven to be simply c relative to the frame where it is measured.  Using PRE-Einstein
science, light speed is mathematically proven to be additive across frames.  There are physical experiments with atomic clocks showing
measurement gains or loses as they change speed.  Thus, the speed of light, like a ball or bullet or sound is relative the frame.  When a
ball or bulled or sound or light exits a car, their speed changes to be relative to the ground.  


The solution for the physics community paradox is to completely accept the fact that both the train and the elevator thought experiments
are wrong.  Time and space do have meaning.  

Time and space are rendered variable  by a theory that delivers a mathematical monstrosity.  How does anyone justify a blind eye to a
mathematical monstrosity?  How does anyone avoid a search for the cause of the failure?  Can Einstein be vindicated by finding and
correcting the flaw?  Will Einstein’s variable  time and space be retained or eliminated by finding the cause of the flaw?  Serious science
must address the cause of the flaw.  The issue isn’t whether I am correct or wrong.  The issue is to find the cause of Einstein’s
mathematical monstrosity.  My argument is just one of many.  I take a different approach.  Other approaches work from the target end.  
They see that the bullet didn’t hit the target so they look for the bullet.  I look at the beginning. I look for the way the bullet is targeted.  
It begins wrong so it can’t hid the target.

The core issue remains. Physicists know Einstein’s theory has a fundamental flaw. Some people aren’t aware of the known fundamental
flaw. Some of them argue against Einstein and some argue for Einstein. Conversely, some people are aware of the fundamental flaw.  
Likewise, some of them argue for Einstein while some argue against Einstein.  

When intelligent, well educated, prominent physicists, who know the flaw exists, argue in favor of Einstein, they are actually arguing
against what they know.  It is amazing that anyone could argue Einstein is correct when they know he as a fundamental flaw.  Since people
know he has a flaw, the logical approach is to search for the cause of the flaw.  Instead, people choose to ignore the flaw while they search
for ways to justify and validate Einstein.  A search for the cause of the flaw is simple and straight forward.  The use of an illusion and
requiring known information to be ignored to eliminate the meaning of simultaneous and the meaning of time is an obvious cause of the
flaw.  The same approach for converting real gravity to a fictional force is an obvious flaw.  

Doing the math.

Using Einstein’s relativity, you have constant c with variable space and time across frames.  Using ChR, you have constant space and time
with relative and additive c.  Einstein’s relativity has variable time and space that result in:

When R= 0 physics breaks down.  

1 over r = 1 over 0 = infinity monstrosity.  

There is infinite gravity and time stops.

With constant time, it can’t be varied out of existence.  Without making space variable and without making variable acceleration become
gravity, it can’t be varied to infinite gravity.  


For Einstein’s relativity, in any formula, you have consideration for:

Across frames:
- variable space
- variable time
- constant speed of light

Within a frame,
- constant space
- constant progression of time
- constant speed of light.

Thus with Einstein relativity, you have different laws of physics based on being within or across frames.  

For ChR, in any formula you have:

Across and within a frame:
- constant space
- constant progression of time
- constant speed of light relative and additive to the frame speed.  

The same laws of physics apply within and across all frames.  

The Galilean velocity transformation.

[quote]In mathematical terms, if all the velocities are in the same direction (say, along x), we just add relative velocities: if v is the
velocity of the wave relative to the water and u is my velocity relative to the water, then v', the velocity of the wave relative to me, is given
by v' = v - u. This common sense equation is known as the Galilean velocity transformation -- a big name for a little idea, it would seem.
[/quote]


The Galilean transformation works except it supposedly doesn’t work for light?  It really does work for light.  

Consider 2 observers.  A moving platform labeled 2  riding on a moving platform labeled 1. One observer is on the ground, the other
observer is on the moving platform 1.  Both observers know the speed of platform 1 as compared to the ground.  Both know the speed of
platform 2 as compared to platform 1.  Both want to know the speed of platform 2 as compared to the ground.  The speed of platform 1
compared to the ground plus the speed of platform 2 compared to platform 1 gives the speed of platform 2 as compared to the ground.

It sure seems that both use the same Galilean transformation formula.  

Now just substitute light for platform 2. You have the speed of platform 1 plus the speed of platform 2 which is substituted with light gives
the speed of light on platform 1 as compared to the ground. I know that Maxwell says that won’t work because light is c everywhere.  He
says that it is constant across frames even though it is only experimentally shown to be c within the frame where it is measured. If his
interpretation is wrong, then using the Galilean transformation does accurately give the calculated additive speed of light across the
frames.  

Using ChR, the train is a passenger on the earth, which is a passenger of the sun, which is a passenger of the galaxy and so on.  With
ChR, we eliminate Einstein’s variable space time.  


We restore:

Distance = Speed x Time
Speed = Distance ÷ Time
Time = Distance ÷ Speed


Work across frame is also relative and additive.  With hierarchy of relativity, there is a valid reason for less work in a frame to ultimately
result in the greater or different cross frame work.  A person on platform B lifts 100 pounds 1 foot.  Platform B is lifted 1 foot in frame A.  
The results is a hierarchy of relativity of an elevation of 2 foot for the 100 pounds relative to frame A.


We restore CM of Copernicus, Newton and Galilean hierarchy of relativity by resolving the constant c regardless interpretation and replacing
it with relative c in a hierarchy of frames.  


The past incomplete sequence of progression in science is expanded.  We have:

- The Mayans had vast knowledge about space time,
– they used the constant time based movement of stars to make their calendars,
- Copernicus and others taught the Mediterranean area people about space, time and science,
- Galileo taught us about science. His lessons worked until Maxwell and his contemporaries,
- CM of Copernicus, Newton and Galileo worked for hundreds of years,   
- Maxwell found that electro mechanical speed aka light is observed as a constant,
- Maxwell and others interpretation gave us constant c regardless
- Maxwell’s observed constant c causes a problem with the Galilean velocity transformation,
- Shortcomings in CM of Copernicus, Newton and Galileo seemingly emerged,
- Einstein expanded on Maxwell’s constant c observations,  
- Einstein relativity, simultaneous not simultaneous, variable time to address constant c,
- Einstein gave us General relativity and special relativity since one theory didn’t do the job,  
- Since Einstein;  we knew there were problems with Einstein’s theory   
- Science is still looking for a valid theory.  
- It is heresy to challenge Einstein even though physicists know it has a fundamental flaw.  
ADDITIONS
- The science community acknowledges the need to address Einstein’s singularity flaw,
- It becomes acceptable to promote and consider resolution of the flaw,
- Section 9 of Einstein’s paper is recognized as an illusion that can be discerned,
- The hierarchy of frames relativity is recognized and accepted,
- ChR includes:
= Interpret constant c to be frame specific as in a wave guide,   
= Returns constant time,
= Define hierarchy of frames,
= Resolves issues or incomplete conditions of Copernicus, Newton and Galileo relativity.  
= Apply Galilean transformation for additive values across hierarchy of frames,
= Apply Copernicus, Newton and Galilean classical relativity across hierarchy of relativity,
= Work across hierarchy of relativity frames is additive.


Copyright Don E. Sprague 2007 2010   All rights reserved.