Law degree

Is Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity incompatible with the very equations upon which science’s greatest theory is built? New observations made by many scientists and engineers appear to contradict the great scientist’s ideas. Apparently there are implicit contradictions present within Relativity’s foundational ideas, documents and equations. One individual has even pointed that quotations from the 1905 document and Einstein’s contemporaries as well as interpretations of the Relativity equations clearly and concisely describe a confused and obviously erroneous theory. It is time therefore, for science to update its thinking on this theory with a comprehensive analysis of the history leading up to, during and after that revolutionary year of Special Relativity.

As this is the 100 year anniversary of the original release of Special Relativity, a review of the original assumptions, documents and ideas which led to the acceptance of this theory is timely and warranted. Every year millions of students are taught this theory without a critical analysis of Relativity. Relativity Theory consists of its two variants Special Relativity and General Relativity and is considered the cornerstone of modern physics.

Albert Einstein borrowed from the ideas of Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Voigt to create a new concept of the universe. His first work in this regard later came to be known as Special Relativity and contained many controversial ideas which today are considered axiomatic. Amongst these are Length Contraction, Time Dilation, the Twin Paradox and the equivalence of mass and energy summarized in the equation E=mc2.

This equation became the shining capstone of the new theory along with its first & second postulates, namely, that the laws of nature are the same from all perspectives and that the speed of light ‘c’ is constant in a vacuum regardless of perspective. Further, the theory also predicted an increase in mass with velocity. Numerous examples have been given of the ‘proof’ of the validity of Special Relativity.

Most notably, experiments using particle accelerators have sped particles to incredible velocities which apparently provide confirmation of Einstein’s theory. However, doubts remain in the scientific community who have never totally given up the comfort of a Newtonian world view. This is readily apparent in that they refer to the Newton’s ‘Law’ of Gravitation whilst Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) are given the polite attribution ‘The Theory of’ or simply SR ‘theory’ and GR ‘theory.’ Einstein would continue working on the ideas of Special Relativity until producing the aforementioned even more controversial treatise.

In his later more comprehensive work called the Theory of General Relativity (1916), Einstein proposed a major re-thinking of cosmology. He conceived of a space time continuum that is curved by mass; in other words, planets, stars, galaxies and other stellar objects cause a curvature of space time. The movement of these objects are determined by the aforementioned curvature.

As a result of these ideas, our understanding of geometry, math, physics, science and the universe would never be the same. However, some scientists are reporting that speed of light is not constant from different experimental observations. One has even reported errors in the fundamental equations. If so, this would require a major rethinking of the known cosmological models and assumptions of modern physics.

Michael Strauss is an engineer who harbored an interest in this subject matter from his earliest math and science courses. For more information: http://www.amazon.com/shops/relativitycollapse or for additional information or to contact the author visit: http://www.relativitycollapse.com or http://www.relativitycollapse.net

Share This

Every year, I receive many phone calls from parents wanting to purchase Venus
Flytraps for their kids’ science project. I ask them what type of experiment that they
are doing, and usually it is about what type of food source will keep the traps
closed. I patiently listen to what they have to say, and then I share with them three
reasons why Venus Flytraps make lousy test subjects:

1. Venus Flytraps are usually dormant when school is in session.
The school year goes from September through June. Venus Flytraps are often
dormant from November through April. During dormancy, Flytraps stop growing
and their traps stop working.

For any science projects to work, your young budding scientists will need to use
plants that are actively growing. That means the best time to do any science project
on Venus Flytraps is during June through September. Not many young budding
scientists are willing to do science projects during the summer when there are many
trees to climb and ponds to swim in.

2. Traps on a Venus Flytrap will open and close about half a dozen times. After
that, they stop working.
Now, how many kids (and adults) out there are disciplined enough to not poke a
Flytrap and to leave it alone? If a trap does not close properly, would it be because
of the testing stimulus or because the trap was poked and poked and poked and
poked and simply stopped working?

3. Traps will live for about 2 months, then it stops working and slowly turns
black, regardless if it had been triggered or not.
Again, if a trap does not close properly, would it be because of the testing stimulus
or because the trap had come to the end of its life cycle?

Select a Different Plant
For these reasons, I often persuade parents to select a different plant. The ideal
plant is one that also moves, like the Venus Flytrap, but is also actively growing
throughout the school year.

The plant? The Cape Sundew (Drosera capensis).

The Cape Sundew is native to South Africa and is considered a tropical plant. It does
not require any dormancy and will grow beautifully throughout the year. They are
also readily available by most nurseries that specializes in carnivorous plants.

Like Venus Flytraps, Cape Sundews have leaves that close around an insect. It does
so very slowly, however, taking about 15 minutes to witness this amazing behavior.

Just make sure that your plant has been grown in very bright lights and has lots of
dew on it. If not, your experiment may not work properly.

So, if your kids want a Venus Flytrap for a science project, use a Cape Sundew
instead. But, still get them a Venus Flytrap. Growing it can be a part of their
summertime activities.

Jacob Farin and Jeff Dallas are owners of Sarracenia Northwest, a nursery
specializing in the cultivation of carnivorous plants. They are also authors of
Secrets to Growing Beautiful Carnivorous Plants for Your Home and Garden, the
most informative carnivorous plant guide ever written. Together, Jacob and Jeff
teach first-time growers how to grow Venus Flytraps, pitcher plants and sundews
without a fancy greenhouse or goofy terrarium. Over 22 years of secrets are
revealed! To contact the authors and learn more about their myth-free approach to
growing carnivorous plants successfully, visit: http://www.cobraplant.com.

Share This

We are about to experience a major paradigm shift based on a natural law which has yet to be fully understood but whose existence is demonstrable.

In the ongoing debate between “Intelligent Design” proponents and those who espouse the “scientific” evolutionary point of view, something is becoming increasingly obvious.

In this question of man’s origins, the stakes are much higher than they are for other sciences because the answer to that particular question will also answer questions about our destiny. It is forcing us to consider what the source of the answers to our carefully controlled questions really is.

The field of man’s origins has become the battleground on which materialism is fighting spirituality for the right to be the basic tenet of human existence.

Science, with its proven effectiveness as a methodology that harnesses the forces of nature to improve man’s condition, has replaced the formerly prevailing religious world view.

This has led to an ideological pendulum swing to the side of “facts” to such an extent that any idea is held in contempt if it challenges the belief - the world view - that an external, material universe will dictate to us what is and what is not true.

The argument against the “Intelligent Design theory” is that ID has no basis in science at all and is simply a throwback to the olden days of witch burnings and government by divine right.

Intelligent Design would appear to be losing the battle except for the fact that huge and growing numbers of people are backing it, including powerful politicians and scientists in top positions.

This is partly because of advances and discoveries in branches of science unrelated to evolution. We’ve all heard of how the observer and the thing observed are bound at an intimate level when dealing with the physics of the very small.

These other branches of science have demonstrated that when our observations are taken to another plane and the peripheral noise that surrounds everyday life is eliminated as a factor, it becomes obvious that we are connected to the universe around us in ways and at a depth previously unsuspected.

Science, simply stated is based on the process of first formulating a theory. If a natural law can then be demonstrated to confirm that theory through experiment, the theory is accepted as scientific fact.

Outer reality can be demonstrated to be a reflection of an inner state.

This confirms ID because it eliminates accident as the determining factor in external events. This natural law does in fact exist and can be replicated by all men of good faith. It only requires focused will, desire, and time, to overcome the peripheral noise.

A paradigm shift occurs when conditions have developed to permit it and the need is overwhelming in a critical mass of a population.

People of influence in any domain who are backing I.D. are doing so because they know from personal experience that outer reality is a reflection of an inner state. That is how they’ve reached the positions of influence they are in.

This is the natural law which will be the basis for the next major paradigm change. The precursor to this paradigm change is the revolt currently taking place against a world view that would have man as an accident in a mindless machine. Taken to its extreme, that is what the theory of evolution is perceived to be saying

The conditions permitting this change, mainly instant, mass, free communication brought about by computers, now exist in western society and it’s a matter of only a little time before the shift manifests.

When a world view appears to be at the height of its powers and impregnable, that is when it is ripe for a fall, to be replaced by a more comprehensive science that will not lose any of its power but will satisfy a need that we were previously unable to address.

Copyright © 2006 Paul Freynet

Paul Freynet is original in thinking and fearless in writing. Visit his site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/towerview/

Share This