Proof that the speed of light is relative and additive to the speed of the frame
of reference where it is measured.

Don Edward Sprague, Copyright 2007, 2008, 2009

Every round trip measurement of the speed of light has been on a moving platform.  Therefore, there hasn't
ever been two identical round trip measurement of the speed of light.  Nobody can dispute the statement.  
The reason is simple.  While both points for the round trip are fixed relative to each other, they are moving
relative to the center of the earth and to the sun and to the galaxy and so on.  

This paper has two parts.  First, I show that the speed of light is relative and additive to the speed of
earth.  Second, I show how the issue is addressed in the theory or relativity.

The speed of light has been measured thousands of times and it is consistently shown to be “c”. We also
know that a square has four sides of equal lengths and we can simultaneously measure the speed of light
between corners of a square and we consistent get the same results for both measurements going different
directions.     

Now consider that our square is 10 units of length per side and moves 10 units of length in the time it takes
for objects to move between A to B and between A to C.  The corners of the square are labeled:  “A” for the
lower left, “B” for the lower right, and “C” for the upper left.

Initial position of box relative to the ground.










For the first half of the round trip, the platform moved 10 units of length relative to the ground while objects
on the platform move 10 units of length on the surface of the platform from A to B and from A to C

First half of round trip:





















In this case, one object moved 10 units of length in the box as it goes from A to B and it also goes from 1 to
3 relative to the ground.  Location 3 is 20 units of length from 1 relative to the ground.  The distance the
object moved is both 10 and 20 units of length depending upon the frame of reference of the objects and
the observer.   The other object moved 10 units of length as it goes from A to C and it also moves 14.14
units of length relative to the ground.   
Second half of round trip:





















The platform moves another 10 units of length relative to the ground while objects on the platform move 10
units of length on the surface of the platform to make their return trip to A.  In this case the object moving
from  B to A moves 10 units of length on the platform but remain at point 3 relative the ground. It has a
ground speed of zero. The other object moved 10 units of length as it goes from C to A on the platform and
it also moves 14.14 units of length relative to the ground.   The results of this activity show: When observed
from the platform, the objects on the platform moved 10 units of length on each half of the round trip for a
total of 20 units each for their round trips between A to B and between A to C.  

When observed from the ground, one object moved 20 units of length for the first half of the platforms trip
then remained still and didn't move for the second half of the platforms trip.  The other object moved in a
triangle from A to C to A for a total distance of 28.28 units of length. Although both objects moved the same
speed and distance relative to the platform,  their movement relative to the ground has one object that
moved 8.29 units of length through space further than the other in the same time frame. This shows that
one object moved further and faster than the other.  

This setup for our real experiment shows that the speed of objects are relative to the frame of reference
where they are measured as well as where they are observed and calculated making them additive when
observed from a point outside the moving frame of reference.     

Now we apply different albeit correct names to the platform and the moving objects.  Instead of referring to
the platform, we call it the surface of the earth. Instead of referring to objects, we call it light. The earth is
spinning on it's axis and is going around the sun and the sun is moving through the galaxy and universe.  
Now consider a point in space as viewed from the surface of the sun.  Suppose that point in space is our
point 1-A as in the above discussion. Relative to the sun, point 1 in space corresponds to point A on the
surface of the earth.  At a later time, relative to the sun, point 1 in space remains at the same place in space
but point A on the surface of the earth has moved just as point A on the platform moved.

It is accepted that the speed of any object is relative to the frame in which it resides. If a moving object
resides on train car or on a bicycle or on the surface of the earth, the speed of the moving object is relative
to the frame in which it resides and is additive to the speed of the moving frame of reference. A ball thrown
from a bicycle, or train or on the surface of the earth is additive to the speed of the bicycle or train or the
surface of the earth.  A sound generated on a bicycle or inside a train car or on the surface of the earth is
relative and additive.  Light is also considered to be relative thus it should be additive.  So now we see that
the objects in the above experiment can properly be called light pulses that moved different speeds and
different distances in space while riding on the moving platform that we previously properly identified as the
surface of the earth.  

We talk about stationary objects but nothing is stationary. That is; all objects are moving in space  but are
also stationary relative to other moving objects. Every experiment or measurement of the speed of light has
been done relative to the surface of a moving earth. Every measurement has shown the same results
regardless of the location or orientation of the measurement devices on earth, the moving frame of
reference. That confirms that the speed of light is relative and additive to the speed of frame of reference
aka earth, where the measurement was made.  The object in the platform discussion moved in a triangle
between 1 and 3 relative to a remote observation point.  The same applies to every measurement of the
speed of light.  The round trip is always a triangle instead of a straight line.  It is safe to say that it is
impossible for any two measurements of the speed of light to begin at the same point in space and go the
same distance in space. Any point A on the surface of the earth will never occupy the same point 1 in space
at any different time.  It is safe to say that at any instant in time point A and point B on earth are moving at
different speeds in different direction in space. Although the distance between points A and B are constant
relative to the surface of the earth or relative to a train car; the distance and speed an object moves in
space is additive to the speed and distance those points moved on the earth. It is safe to say that the
distance an object moves between points A and B on the earth is never the same distance in space at any
two different times.  Although the distance on earth between two points can remain the same, the triangle
for any round trip to measure the speed of light has never been the same and will never be the same.  

Every measurement of the speed of light confirms that the measurement obtains the same results
regardless of the size or shape of the triangle in space where the light traveled.  To repeat this experiment,
simply calculate the speed and direction of movement of the earth based platform being used to measure
the speed of light.  Then calculate the shape of the triangle the light traveled.  From those calculations you
can identify the speed of light through space as viewed from some remote point in space.   You can observe
the triangle from the sun or the moon or any planet or other remote point in space.  Each will give a
constant speed of light on earth but a different speed of light depending upon the remote observation point
as well as the time of day or the location and orientation on earth where the test is conducted.   

In the above I show that the speed of light is relative and additive to the speed of the earth frame of
reference where it resides.  I showed that objects move in space over time.  In the following I address the
assumption that simultaneous events aren't simultaneous because time and space are variable.  

Einstein’s dilemma with the relativity of simultaneity

The purpose of chapter IX of Einstein’s paper was specifically to eliminate the meaning of time because
of the problem that Einstein himself described in an earlier chapter where he wrote w=c-v which means
that the speed of light is relative and additive if time does have meaning.  Einstein clearly states that the
person on the train will move from the mid point of the lightning strikes and will proceed toward one strike
and away from the other.  As a result, the moving observer will think the simultaneous events aren't
simultaneous. As a result of the false perception of the person who isn't at the mid point, the simultaneous
events don’t seem to be simultaneous.  From that elimination of a simple fact that the person can’t observe
the events as simultaneous,  Einstein claims that time has no meaning.   

It took over 10 years for Einstein’s theory to be accepted.  For over 100 years, many people have pondered
the issue of simultaneous relativity.  Search the web and you will find papers by many experts in the world
of physics.  One example is Paul Marmet. Ph. D. (Physics).  In his paper: The GPS and the Constant Velocity
of Light http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Illusion/index.html,  and his paper: Einstein's Theory of Relativity
versus classical Mechanics http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/index.html, he provides detail
description and formula that address simultaneous events and problems with the theory of relativity.  He
and many others made the same mistake of arguing the wrong issue.  I even lapsed into the depths of the
problem since my original paper where I pointed out Einstein’s laps in logic. Einstein didn't eliminate the
meaning of time by pointing out that a person who isn't at the mid point between the simultaneous lightning
strikes won’t observe them as simultaneous. He simply replaced reality with illusion. The detail discussion,
experiments and formula are nice but not necessary.  It all goes back to Einstein’s failure to eliminate the
meaning of time.  There is nothing in Einstein’s paper or any other paper that eliminates the meaning of
time. Science doesn't or shouldn't accept illusion as reality because it is convenient.    

Einstein goes on to claim that space has no meaning. Although  I addressed Einstein’s mistakes in my essay,
let’s suppose that Einstein was correct.  Suppose that space and time are variable and any method of
measuring them are variable as Einstein says. Suppose the speed of light is constant because it travels
some variable distance for some variable time.  How can you claim to have a constant speed of light my
multiplying a variable distance in space by a variable duration of time.  Fortunately; we can accurately
measure the movement of things as they move in space and time because space and time are constant.  
Until someone proves they aren't constant, they remain constant and the speed of light remains additive as
Einstein understood when he wrote w=c-v.  That is: he understood that the speed of light is additive as long
as time has meaning.    

This discussion is reminiscent of wrong dinosaur head being accepted by the scientific community for over
100 years.  Although many people in the scientific community knew of the problem, they didn't want to be
the ones who pushed to correct the mistake. It is past time to correct the problem of the theory of relativity.  
Perhaps the problem has been prolonged because the theory or relativity isn't required study.  It is simply
accepted as a basis for discussion of science and education.  As a result, science and study are based on an
illusion instead of reality.  It could be that until now, nobody has properly addressed the problem and
properly explained the illusion Einstein employed to resolve his dilemma.  This short paper goes to the heart
of the issue in a simple concise way.  My essay goes through all of Einstein’s paper addressing how he
understood his problems and how he used illusion to replace reality.  If you can understand this short paper,
you don’t need to read my original essay or any of my other papers. If you are interested in learning more
about the problems in Einstein’s paper, go ahead and read my essay and the other papers. Relativity is
compound or complex. There is an explanation that addresses things like planet orbit ellipse. You may find
the conclusion of most value because it is concise

Click here to read the conclusion:  

The meaning of time is what it's all about.  The false illusion doesn't eliminate the meaning of time.

Copyright Don E. Sprague 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010    All rights reserved.
The Fundamental Flaw in the theory of relativity

Don Edward Sprague, 08 February, 2010 Copyright

Here is a simple representation of the most important experiment addressing simultaneous events.

A---------------------------M----------------------------B
--------------------------------------m'-------------------

M is a person at the midpoint between A and B so he observes simultaneous arrival of light that
simultaneously originated at A and B.  m' moved away from the midpoint between A and B so he observes
different arrival times for the same light that simultaneously originated at A and B.   To most people, it is
obvious that the person who isn't at the midpoint will see different arrival times of the light.  To
Physicists,  it means time has no meaning.  

In section 9 of the Theory of Relativity, the focus is placed on arrival time instead of origination time of
past events.  Everyone knows the origination time isn't based just on arrival time.  The  theory converts
different arrival times to a representation of the origination times of the past events. We all know the light
traveled different distances. Thus the indications must arrive at different times.

HOWEVER: The theory says the opposite.  According to the theory,  since the light travels different
distances, it will arrive at different times which means the earlier simultaneous events didn't seem to
originate simultaneously to anybody who isn't at the mid point.  Einstein relativity specifies that: since
they do not seem to be simultaneous events,  they are not simultaneous events.    

This is a thought experiment described in section 9 of the theory of relativity. The false perception is used
to change the definition of simultaneous and eliminate the meaning of time. The person's movement is
specified to get the person away from the mid point. Then the person's movement is discarded.  His
known false perception is converted to fact. That means, section 9 of the theory of relativity says, you
don't need to actually be correct to be correct.  You only need to think you are correct to be correct.  

I found that nobody disputes the pivotal importance of section IX The Relativity of Simultaneity in the
Theory of Relativity. Section 9 is a very short easy to read section of Albert’s paper and it basically fits on
one 8 by 10 page using normal print and spacing. Section 9 is the linchpin section.  Without section 9, the
theory of relativity is meaningless. Shortly I will provide two links to two different places showing section 9
of Albert’s work.

From here on, it is just commentary.

Regardless of your field of interest or skills, you can easily read and understand section 9 of Albert’s paper
if you actually passed the 8th grade. It is very important to have an open mind when reading section 9 of
Albert’s paper.  Please don’t go in thinking is it either true or false. Go in thinking the facts must support
the conclusion.  Then form your own conclusion.  

I have discusses the theory of relativity with a large number of people including Physicists. Everyone
consistently works to move the discussion away from section 9 of Albert’s paper. Very few people attempt
to explain the justification for the conclusion of section 9. Most people try to justify section 9 with other
sections of the paper.  That is, they say that section 9 is correct because the other sections are correct.
Then they justify the accuracy of the other sections because section 9 is correct.  That is; A is correct
because B is correct; and B correct because A is correct.  Occasionally people have said they understand
the theory but they haven’t read it because they don’t have time.  They say they haven’t even read just
the short section 9 portion while they argue the validity of that section and the entire paper.  NOTE:  
When discussing this thought experiment,  people will try to move away from the problem.  Don't let
people divert unless or until they address the known false perception used to replace fact.  Once the
discussion moves away,  they have successfully diverted from the problem they can't answer.    

Basically; section 9 is about a THOUGHT experiment. That means, the pivotal section of the theory isn’t
based on actual experimental data.  It is simply based on a philosophical thought experiment conclusion
that requires information to be both known and intentionally ignored. Section 9 deals with a hypothetical
person on a train.  Just as the hypothetical person on the moving train is at the midpoint between
simultaneous events A and B on the embankment, we tell him two events just happen. He doesn’t know
he is moving. Eventually the lights arrive at different times.

The typical explanation says he has two options.
1) the trigger events happened at different times so they aren’t simultaneous.
2) the trigger events happened at the same time but the light traveled at different speeds.
Since C is constant, the only choice is option 1.

However; as always, I come in and say it is a trick question. There is a third option.
3) The light events happened at the same time. Light travels at the same speed from both points. Thus,
the person on the train is moving. Nobody addresses the issue that the hypothetical train passenger in
the thought experiment would say the events are simultaneous when he knows the facts. The use of the
term trick question is important to help people have a clear mind when reading section 9 of Albert’s
paper.  

- Here is another trick question for old timers. How many groves are on one side of a 33 1/3 RPM record
that last 2 minutes. Before going to any formula, think about the grove on a record. It is one grove that
goes around and around.
- If a game baseball game is called after 5 innings because of rain, how many outs were there? Many
people will go to the formula 3 times 5 = 15. Actually it is 6 outs per inning (3 each side) making it 30 outs
after 5 innings.
- One of my favorites is: If a bear walks past a house with all 4 sides facing south, what color is the bear?
To determine the color of the bear, you must first determine the location of the house. I told you where
the house is located.
- My very most favorite trick question. When indications of simultaneous events don’t arrive at a person at
the same time, what does it mean? To most people it means the person isn’t at the mid point between
the events. To a Physicists, it means time has no meaning.

Before reading the short section of Albert’s paper, you might find the short video of value.  It shows how
the first person determined the size of the earth based on shadows and sticks.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8cbIWMv0rI

Now, please go to one of the two following links to read just section:  IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity from: Albert
Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html  or  http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einste...Relativity.pdf

The first link goes direct to section 9 of Albert’s paper.  The second link goes to Albert’s complete paper. Page through
using the up and down arrow next to the page numbers on the control bar.

After you read section 9, The Relativity of Simultaneity, then you might be ready for some questions.  
- For section 9 to be valid, is it necessary for the train to be moving?  Yes is the only answer.  
- For the hypothetical train passenger to think the events aren’t simultaneous, can he be aware of all the
facts?  That is; can he be aware that the train is moving.  No is the only answer.  If he knows he is
moving, then he would be able to determine a reason for the different arrival times of the simultaneous
events.
- Based on the above, is it remotely possible that the simultaneous events are simultaneous since the
hypothetical train passenger in the philosophical thought experiment was specifically required to be
mistaken as a result of a lack of experience and knowledge?   Yes, it is possible.  It is more than possible.  
It is the only choice.  

SECTION 9 Examined in detail.  

We have the embankment.  The train is miles away and won’t go past the embankment for sometime.  

A------------------------M-------S1-------S2--------B > this is the embankment at velocity 0

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A1>>>>A2>>>>A3>>>>>>   Light from lightning strike at point A
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<B3<<<<<B2<<<<B1<<<<<   Light from lightning strike at point B


On the embankment we have the two simultaneous events at A and B.  We have the M for the  man at
the Mid point between A and B.  We have two sisters on the embankment.  The sisters are so much alike
they look like twins, so we will call them twin sister 1 and sister 2.  I suppose the man and the twin sisters
don’t get along because they are standing apart.  Shortly after the simultaneous events happen at A and
B, some light from B arrives at Sister 2.  That is because she is closer to B.  Then the light from B arrives at
Sister 1.  Then the light from A and B arrive at the man at the Mid point between A and B. Then the light
from A arrives at Sister 1. Then the light from A arrives at sister 2.  All this is as expected.  The sisters aren’
t at the mid point so the lights arrive at different times. I can’t see how anybody could dispute the
scenario. In fact; in all my discussion, nobody challenges these results.  Nobody claims the simultaneous
events aren’t simultaneous because the sisters, who aren’t at the midpoint,  don’t observe them as
simultaneous.  

The train approaches.  Get ready.  Now, the train points A and A’ are aligned.  Points B and B’ along with M
and M’ are aligned.  Even though A/A’ and B/B’ and M/M’ are in different frames,  they are comparable
locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.

A----------------------------M-------S1-------S2--------B > this is the embankment at velocity 0

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A1>>>>A2>>>>A3>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<B3<<<<B2<<<<B1<<<<<<<

A’--------------------------M’S3--------------------------B’ > this is the train at velocity V


----------- A’--------------------------M’S3--------------------------B’ >  train at velocity V


------------------- A’--------------------------M’S3--------------------------B’ > train at velocity V

The man on the train is traveling with sister 3.  She is so much like sisters 1 and 2 that they must be
triplets.  They are riding on a very modern train and don’t know they are moving. They don’t feel the
bumping and don’t hear any noise. They must have been distracted and weren’t aware that the train left
the station sometime ago.

The lightning strikes A and B and A’ and B’ at the same time.  For relativity to apply, we must have 4 light
events instead of just 2.  Although we go through just addressing the two lightning strikes on the
embankment, the exact reverse applies.   After the lightning strikes A and B, the train moves. Just as
triplet sister 3 is aligned with triplet sister 1, that is the time that both sisters and the man at the midpoint
on the train at observe the light from point B.  

Remember earlier we said: Even though M and M’ are different, they are comparable locations across
frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.  The same applies to the triplet sisters.  Even though
S1 and S2 are different from S3, when they are aligned,  they represent comparable locations across
frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.  

Some time later, both lights simultaneously arrive at the man on the embankment. Just as triplet sister 3
is aligned with triplet sister 2, that is the time that both sisters and the man at the midpoint on the train
at observe the light from point A.

Thus we have three comparable cross frame locations.

M and M’ are cross frame comparable locations. Even though M and M’ are different, when they are
aligned,  they represent comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.  

Sister 3 and 1 alignments are cross frame comparable locations. Even though sister 3 and sister 1 are
different, when they are aligned,  they represent comparable locations across frames. Their movement
doesn’t distinguish them.  

Sister 3 and 2 alignments are cross frame comparable locations. Even though sister 3 and sister 2 are
different, when they are aligned,  they represent comparable locations across frames. Their movement
doesn’t distinguish them.  

Are you seeing the trend here.  It is perfectly correct for Sister 1 and Sister 2 to understand that the
arrival times are different for lights from A and B.  Since we established that the points where sister 3
aligned with sister 1 is comparable, and, where sister 3 and sister 2 aligned is comparable, then sister 3
understand the reason the lights from events that happened at points A and B are simultaneous even
though they arrived her locations at different times. So we have a disconnect. The Physicists on the train
needs to listen to the three women instead of listening to Albert who is standing on the embankment
watching the world go by.  

CONCLUSION:

Section 9, The Relativity of Simultaneity is the pivotal section of Albert’s work.  It is based on a carefully
specified condition that must deliver a false illusion.  The person on the train must be moving but can’t be
aware of the movement.  This is required to facilitate the mistaken conclusion that the cross frame
simultaneous events changed from simultaneous to not being simultaneous.  Without the specified error,
time retains meaning. With time having meaning, the entire paper goes away.  

Many very brilliant well informed people have written excellent papers about relativity.  Most do a
wonderful job of explaining the conclusions of the theory based on the assumption that section 9 is
correct.  Most but not all Physicists accept Albert’s paper as correct. Even though they do, I still haven’t
found any to address my challenge to section 9.  

Paul Marmet, Ph. D. (1932-2005) was a brilliant Physicists.  He had a brilliant career and worked in many
areas.  http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/info/author.html   He wrote many papers.  Some of his work also
challenged the theory of relativity.  His approach was different than mine. In the about 100 years of the
theory of relativity, many brilliant Physicists didn’t accept it from the first day it was published until it was
accepted many years later.  Since it was accepted, many brilliant Physicists like Paul Marmet, Ph.D.
continued to challenge it. I simply took a different tact to challenge the theory.  I examined the theory and
found the pivotal section that is based on an illusion becoming fact.  

I am looking forward to the day when someone will give a valid explanation for a specified false
perception to replace fact, or; for the acknowledgment that facts can’t be replaced by a specified false
perception. After that day, I can move on to other things with either finally having a better understanding
of the concept that logic doesn’t apply in physics; or,  Physicists can move on to bigger and better work
dealing with things moving through time and space instead of thinking that time and space bend to fit
around things.

Addendum: Do physicists have open minds?

My concern is to improve science.  In one discussion I was pointed to very good paper that goes into
detail explanations about the conclusion of the theory.  Regardless of the section 9 problem, the paper is
very good work.

http://www.oberlin.edu/physics.../Einstein/SRBook.pdf  

In that paper I found;
quote
New experiments are being performed every day, and new explanations are being devised every day.
Perhaps someday a reliable experiment inconsistent with relativity will be performed. When that day
arrives scientists are prepared to abandon relativity, just as Einstein was prepared to in 1921

However, relativity is far more likely to be modified than completely overturned.
Quote

I hope that is the case. I found substantial examples of the results of the theory. I didn’t find anything
that addresses the section 9 problem.  I doubt it will be replaced with another form of relativity. I suspect
some form of proximity factors that include very inclusive consideration of complete data beyond things
like Doppler on a super scale.  That is for the experts in many areas to address.  

Addendum: All frames aren't equal.  

The earth and a train aren't equal.  Two trains are equal.  When the Albert says the train and
embankment are interchangeable,  that isn't correct.  It is obvious that the train can't be considered to be
interchangeable with the earth.  So what conditions allow the interchangeability of two frames?  

The origination events must have the same relationship with both frames for the frames to be
interchangeable.  There must be comparable conditions.  Two lightning strikes in one frame don't translate
to the other frame.  

To be interchangeable,  
- there must be 4 simultaneous light origination events,  2 in each frame.  Or,
- points A and A' must be truly the same. Or,   
- they must be isolated from either frame.  

None of this alters the original problem.  The arrival time doesn't determine the origination time.  

Addendum: All light measurements relative to ground, none relative to other frame.
To review experiments addressing the theory of relativity, mostly the speed of light,  

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

When reviewing that site,  I realized we have an assumption I had missed before.  As far as I can determine, all
experimental data measuring the speed of light has basically been done relative to the earth.  That is; I can’t find any
experimental data relative to the train in Albert’s thought experiment. Thus; we accept without proof that light is going
C inside the train.   It seems that we only know that every experiment shows it constant relative to earth.  A comment
that the sprague light race won’t work prompted me to think of the above issue.  We have all said the speed of light is
C relative to the  train.  If that is so, then light from a flashlight on the train is going C if the flashlight is held both
inside and outside the train window.  Suppose the speed of light isn’t C relative to the train.  Suppose it is bound within
it’s relativity to the earth.  

I searched and can’t find any true moving frame experiment measuring the speed of light other than those where the
earth is the moving frame.  Has the MM experiment or any comparable measurement been done on a train or in an
airplane or on a spacecraft?   Each adds variables. Perhaps the spacecraft or a high flying airplane moves it too far from
the proximity relationship with the earth. Please don’t focus on the other variables.  Please focus on the search for
proof that the speed of light is C relative to another cross earth frame such as the train.

Copyright   All rights reserved.
Classical hierarchy Relativity. An extension of Classical Mechanics

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:

The science community has always acknowledges that Einstein’s theories have a fundamental  flaw.   There isn’t any doubt
that Einstein’s relativity result in a mathematical singularity that is a fundamental flaw with time ending and gravity going
to infinity. It is considered to be the most accurate flawed theory in it’s domain of applicability.

Classical Mechanics (CM) is the oldest known branch of study concerned with motion and forces producing motion. It has
been uses for thousands of years and is still used for daily practical applications.  It is also considered to be a flawed
theory that is accurate for daily use but is thought to be wrong at light speeds.   For thousands of years, people used
constant time and space as required in CM.  The Mayans used constant space and time and knew of the hierarchy of
frames in motion.  Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton also gave us a basic understand that there is a hierarchy of relativity
with the earth going around the sun.   They showed the basic concept of an absolute value for things in a frame but not an
absolute speed across various frames.

Einstein relativity specifies that there is an absence of absolute standards for time and space.  Based on Maxwell's
interpretation,  Einstein expands the concept of constant speed of light.  Thus,  Einstein gave us his variable space and
time relativity with constant c.   


Classical hierarchy Relativity (ChR) interprets all light speed experiments as showing 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.    

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.  


Copyright All rights reserved

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.
100% accurate universal time clocks

Thinking about how to making 2 or more 100% accurate synchronized universal time clocks could benefit
from thinking outside the box while looking for something new out of something old.  Literally,  when we
think of a clock, we think inside the clock box for a movement to monitor.  A very old way of looking for
constant or predictable movement is to look at the stars.  With modern technology, and data collection and
sharing methods, we can observer various stellar events from the past to project future conditions. One
stellar clock program and data set can be loaded into 2 or more stellar clocks with cameras and update
connections between all devices. The dynamically updated programs and data allows all the stellar clocks to
accurately calculate and display the common device time and positions of the clocks regardless of their land
or space based position within their known stellar data array.

The data consists of historical star maps with position and transition activity. It also tracks the positions of
other stellar clocks. The programs calculate the projected position and conditions of various stars or devices
any specified time.  The update links between the devices allow dynamic data and time synchronization
confirmation among devices.

This tool delivers one common ubiquitous time that progresses or builds upon it’s self at a constant rate.  

This is an updated description of processes defined in 2007 Copyright material.

Copyright 2007 2008 2009 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
14-August, 2010
Classical Mechanics and Classical hierarchy Relativity vs

Einstein’s conflicting Theories of Relativity,

originally On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.


This site addresses issues in Classical Mechanics (CM) as compared to the known fundamental flaw in
Einstein’s conflicting Theories of Relativity that end in a singularity flaw with time ending and gravity
going to infinity. Classical hierarchy Relativity (ChR) addresses lack of definition in CM and mistaken
interpretations that led to Einstein Relativity.    

CM has constant space and time and implies the speed of light is relative.  It had stationary observer
frame until the earth was recognized as moving around the sun.

Einstein Relativity has variable space and time with light constant.  It uses stationary observer frame.  It
is acknowledged to have a fundamental flaw with time ending.  

ChR expands on CM with additional definitions and description.  ChR has constant space and time with
relative speed of light. ChR defines the known hierarchy of relativity with the earth frame moving around
the sun frame and so on.  ChR has light travel "c" in open space compared to open space and "c" in a
planet or sun frame gravitational field force compared to the planet or sun.
Laws of physics:

Don Edward Sprague, 01 Oct, 2010

The Classical laws Of Physics are “considered to be wrong or incomplete”.  Since our knowledge of forces
and conditions is incomplete we have Einstein’s Laws to replace Classical Laws. We know Einstein relativity
has a fundamental flaw that results in a mathematical impossibility with time stopping and gravity going to
infinity.  Thus an examination of the Laws of Physics is on order.  

It is widely accepted that Einstein specifies that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and the
speed of light is the same everywhere. Actually that isn’t what Einstein says.  His paper says:

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

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

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


The impact of disregard of influences:  

A limited Domain of Applicability is established through exclusion of known information. Inclusion of known
information expands the Domain of Applicability but invalidates any theory that requires information to be
disregarded.
- Conclusions from experiments must not exclude relevant information.
- A statement may seem to be basically accurate when specifically limited to omit data.
- Consideration of a statement must address the implicit as well as the explicit.


Galileo’s, Einstein’s and Classical relativity laws of motion:

Perhaps Galileo’s Law is incomplete or misunderstood.  Thus, the need to clarify or expand to be inclusive.  
A comparison of the Classical, Einstein and enhanced Classical relativity laws gives:
- Galileo’s law:  All speeds are relative to the speed of the observer.
- Einstein’s law:  All speeds except space and time are relative to the frame of reference.
- Classical relativity law: 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. Note: this law includes light, space, and time.

My enhanced specifications are inclusive for an unlimited Domain of Applicability:

In an inclusive Classical hierarchy of Relativity (ChR),

- 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.

- There is no such thing as a stationary object. Nothing remains at rest at a point in space at any time from
moment to moment. There is such a thing as one thing being basically stationary relative to another object.  
Thus, ChR says no speed is absolute.  Speeds are relative to frames in a hierarchy.  

- An observer inside a box has endless xyz coordinate that aren’t obstructed by a wall or lack of direct  
visibility. However; a frame’s xyx coordinates have internal boundaries.  A flipped coin inside a car moves as
compared to the car.  A flipped coin on earth outside the car moves as compared to the earth. It is visible to
the car observer and the earth observer.  The coin motion in the car is directly compared to the car and
indirectly or additively compared to the earth.  

- When we observe any event, we are watching the results of what happened sometime ago.

- The movement of objects have both a direct as well as an indirect relationship or impact on the movement
of others.

- The movement of objects in time and space can be consistently measures and accurately predicted
because time and space are constant.

- All the variables must be included to accurately project the outcome. Size, movement and structure of one
or more objects are variables that impact the universal magnetic field and other objects will be impacted by
those variables.

- As any disturbance in the universal magnetic field originates, travels and impacts a target, there is an
equal and opposite reaction throughout the path.  

- Time is NOT relative to a place, object or event. All things exist at moments in time relative to all other
objects. Events that happen at the same time in any frame are simultaneous regardless of frame of
observer.  

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

- The effect of acceleration may simulate the effect of gravity, the cause of each is very different. Similarity of
effect does not necessarily result in similarity of cause. Acceleration is not the same as gravity.  It may
temporarily be confused with gravity for the inexperienced observer.

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

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

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

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

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

- Selection of a body of reference must include consideration of the hierarchy of relativity. Space and time do
not change. The locations of various objects change in time and space.

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

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

- An electromagnet produces a field that is similar to gravity. Gravity does exist.

- Gravity will cause the direction of travel of Light energy to bend.

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

- Energy dissipates as it travels.

- Light energy dissipates.

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

- There is proof of a dynamic changing universe. That doesn’t mean the universe expands.  

- The speed of light is relative to all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.


All frames equally applies to the laws of physics being the same in all frames.  It also applies to the speed of
light being the same in all frames.  

- 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 frame where the points are tied to.  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.

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 light
speed with relative time.  

This demonstration shows that 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
distance the between mark A to mark B on the backboard is the same regardless of viewer.  The length of
time the ball falls from mark A to mark B is the same regardless of viewer.  The velocity the ball falls from
mark A to mark B is the same regardless of viewer.  The distance and velocity from observed moving point A
when the ball is released to moving point B where the ball arrived is greater than the distance and velocity
from the A and B marks on the backboard.    

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 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 without
respect to the laws of physics. All frame aren’t equal but the laws of physics apply equally in all frames. A
train and a car and the earth and the sun are all different 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 aren’t
equally valid as being the same size, shape, mass, color and have the same motion. Different conditions in
and across frames doesn’t make the laws different.

This is a synopsis from my 2007 papers.

Copyright  2007 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
Sprague demonstration of Galilean transformation vs Lorentz Transformation.  

16, dec,2010

Copyright Don Edward Sprague

I show two primary variations of the demonstration.  In version one we use a ruler, paper and
a marker. In version 2 we use 2 markers and paper.  

Version 1, paper ruler and marker

1 - Attach markers on a rules:
- Attach one marker at the 1 inch mark on the ruler,
- Attach one marker at the 2 inch mark on the ruler,
- Attach one marker at the 3 inch mark on the ruler,

2 - Place the ruler on the top left part of the paper so the markers make marks on the paper.

3 - Move the ruler with the markers diagonally down and along the paper so there are 3
diagonal marks on the paper from the left top to the middle bottom.  

4 - Hold the ruler while moving the paper to form 3 diagonal lines from the middle bottom of
the paper to the top right of the paper.  

5 - You have three V shape marks on the paper.  
- The left side of the V shape is with the moving ruler frame,
- The right side of the V shape is the moving paper frame.  

6 - Measure the distance between the marks to find the Lorentz Contraction.  

You can’t find any contraction with either frame moving.

In the first case, you have the RULER move.  In the second case, you have the PAPER move.  
In both cases, there was a frame that was considered to be stationary and a frame that was
considered to be moving.  You can’t find the Lorentz contraction in either results.  You do find
Classical Mechanics and the Galilean transformation are accurate in both results.


Version 2, paper and markers.


1 - Place the paper on a flat surface.
2 - Align both markers to be as though they are one marker with two points to mark on the
paper.  
If you hold the markers in one hand and move them sideways, you will have two parallel lines

______________________________
______________________________

3 - Hold both makers and move the MARKERS to form a large double V on the paper.  

4 - Turn the paper over.  

5 - Hold both makers and move the PAPER to form a large double V on the paper.  

In the first case, you have the MARKERS move.  In the second case, you have the PAPER
move.  In both cases, there was a frame that was considered to be stationary and a frame that
was considered to be moving.  You can’t find the Lorentz contraction in either results.  You do
find Classical Mechanics and the Galilean transformation are accurate in both results.  

You can’t find a Lorentz Contraction in either demonstration.

In the Galilean Transformation, time, distance, and speed is constant within frames with speed
additive across frames.  

In the Lorentz Transformation contraction, time, distance and speed is constant within frame
with time and distance variable across frames.

You can’t find a Lorentz contraction in either demonstration.
Which object is moving in deep space?  

31, Jan 2011, Copyright Don Edward Sprague

Consider imaginary things in deep space without capability to see other stuff. Since they are so isolated,
there is no motive to gain information. The discussion is basically meaningless.  Let’s give motive.  On one
thing, there is some food.  On the other is a hungry person.  The hungry person has all sorts of tools but
no food.  If there were just a way to get the food from the other thing. Now there is a goal and motive to
determine the motion.  The person can use methods that are used on a pool table.  The person can propel
an object to cause the food to be knocked off the other thing in such a way that it is propelled to the
person planet.  The single motion of one or the other requires different trajectory of initial propelled object
to cause the desired trajectory of the food.  Compound motion of both things requires another trajectory.  
It takes testing experience to eventually arrive at the correct actions to get the food.  

Copyright Don E. Sprague 2011  All rights reserved.
Slowing of Pioneer 10 solved.  It seems that the speed of two probes slows by about 6 mph per century.  

The science community claims the slowing of Pioneer 10 is explained by the electric universe.  Then they go
on to state that they don’t know how it all works. While Classical hierarchy Relativity does explain the
electric universe, the electric force is not the cause the slowing of the craft.  

The cause of the slowing of the space craft in distant empty space is the fact that the empty space isn’t
empty.  There is thin stuff out there.  The stuff causes drag or resistance.  The density of the stuff in quasi
empty space can be calculated based on the surface and speed of the space craft. The stuff that causes
Pioneer 10 to slow is some of the same stuff that causes Interstellar reddening.   

Some might call it missing matter.  It isn’t missing, it has just been ignored.  The slowing of the space craft
makes it harder to ignore the reality of the thin stuff in space.  

http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html

[quote]
A Mystery Solved - Welcome to the Electric Universe!
[/quote]

[quote]
Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up pictures of Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is being pulled back to the sun by an unknown
force. The effect shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that the probe has revealed
a new force of nature. Dr Philip Laing, a member of the research team tracking the craft, said: “We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and
so far nothing works.”
[/quote]

[quote]
Research to be published shortly in The Physical Review, a leading physics journal, will show that the speed of the two probes is being changed by about 6 mph per
century - a barely-perceptible effect about 10 billion times weaker than gravity. Scientists initially suspected that gas escaping from tiny rocket motors aboard the
probes, or heat leaking from their nuclear power plants might be responsible. Both have now been ruled out. The team says no current theories explain why the force
stays constant: all the most plausible forces, from gravity to the effect of solar radiation, decrease rapidly with distance.
[/quote]

Empty space that isn’t empty places a constant drag or slowing of the space craft.  If the craft direction
were to change or reverse,  the empty space that isn’t empty drag would cause the same slowing in
any direction.  

Copyright Don E. Sprague, 01, June, 2011
CERN OPERA neutrino experiment data compared to

- Einstein Train thought experiment.


CERN measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf


The base assumption include:
- The CERN OPERA experiment sent neutrinos through over 700 km of rock
- Other labs have sent neutrinos through the earth and measured speeds that were “c”
- The clocks are very accurately synchronized
- The earth is almost a non-accelerating frame with slight rotation
- Neutrinos interact so weakly with ordinary matter so rock is somewhat like a vacuum
- Light travels “c’ in every direction in a vacuum on a non-accelerating non-rotating frame or field regardless
of the motion of the frame or field.

The measurements seem to show the neutrinos traveled through the “known distance” through a “known
vacuum” in a “known time:” faster than light speed.   

Either their work and measurements are correct or they have an error some place.  There are lots of “If,
then” choices.  
- If their work, measurements and calculations are correct,
— then we need more information to show why the neutrinos traveled the distance in the time
— then other experiments with neutrinos going through earth is wrong.  
- If their work, measurements and calculations are NOT correct, then the problem is with:
— the calculations, or
— the vacuum assumptions, or
— the assumption about the earth rotation, wobble, or acceleration, or
— time and distance measurements and calculations or
— the synchronization process and calculations, or
— two or more of the above.  


Rotation of the earth pulling the earth force field or

The earth force casing the rotation of the earth.  

Force field interaction.

We have:
- A force field propels the earth.  
— The earth resists the force field so it somewhat lags the force field.
- A force field that light travels within omnidirectional unencumbered.

If that is the case,

Then:
- The earth slightly lags the force that moves the earth, and
- The light travels “c” in every direction of the earth propelling force field.  

If that is the case,
- There would be a slight difference in light speed compared to the directional earth rotation,
- There would not be a difference in the speed of light compared to the field.  

If that is the case,
- If neutrino travel is [B]with [/B]the earth rotation as compared to the center of the earth
— Then the neutrino will arrive early.
- If neutrino travel is [B]against[/B] the earth rotation as compared to the center of the earth
— Then the neutrino will arrive late.
- If neutrino travel is [B][U]about[/U] perpendicular [/B]to earth rotation as compared to the center of the
earth
— Then the neutrino will arrive on time.


Additional neutrino experiments need to have the travel different directions as compared to the earth.  It
could be good to have some sort of event pulse that emits neutrinos in all directions in the earth force field
allowing examination of arrival times at several different detectors.  I suggest that the light would travel c
compared to the earth force field but might not travel c compared to the earth.  I suggest that there could be
a direct correlation to the different arrival times based on the difference in speed of the earth as compared
to the earth force field.  


The Vacuum that is NOT a vacuum

We don’t know what substance or forces other than rock over what distance that the neutrinos are
interacting with as they travel through the several thousand kilometers vacuum that is not a vacuum.  There
could be many different materials in the path of the neutrinos. Transition from material to material and
transit through materials could result in change in speed.  There could be variations in the earth magnetic
field.  

Synchronized clocks.  

From the limited information, they seem to have done a very good job synchronizing the clocks at the
sending and receiving location. Considering the difference in ways to measure the speed of time, the
process they use seem to provide a very consistent constant progression of time as it builds on it’s self
through the experiment field. However; Einstein time is only constant compared to a non-accelerating non-
rotating frame but is it is NOT constant on the spinning and accelerating earth.  Therefore; one could argue
that the difference proves Einstein variable time.     

The earth is rotating and it is wobbling and accelerating.  Since the tests include different times of the day
and night throughout the 3 years, the rotation does NOT SEEM to be an issue. However; the Coriolis effect
from earth rotation does cause changes to the travel of light and other objects.  I suspect the wobble is not
an issue. However; the wobble does add to the Coriolis effect rotation forces.  Acceleration could still be an
issue.



Locations and distance on a non-accelerating frame that is accelerating

The UP daily coordinates tell something.  They seem to support my argument that the earth crust goes up
and down like waves in the ocean.  The crust waves are obviously slower that ocean waves. That is, they
are slower except during an earthquake.  They are obviously less height over a short time.  Over a long time,
I suspect the height can be very large.  


Quake indicator, The crust height changes or waves before the quake seem to show a stress building.
Before the quake, up average seem to go from a low at the beginning of 2008 then peak mid 2008 then are
headed down before the quake.  After the quake, they average seems to be relatively flat.  There could be
value in examining the distance the detector is from the quake center and then placing GPS receivers
comparable and greater distance from quake zones throughout the earth to collect up coordinates. I know
that detectors are placed close to and in quake zones, I am referring to placing them far from quake zones.
Then examine the several years of data as quake activity occurs.  This could be done almost as simply as
using existing cell phone data and placing other cell phones or satellite phones at various locations then
having them call in the data on some schedule.  If detectors are already placed far from quake zones, I
wasted two paragraphs.  




We assume the difference in east, west, and up locations for both the emitter and detector is used for
determining each separate experiment neutrino event emission and detection distance of travel. That is, we
assume that the distance is continually calculated and adjusted based on the data.   I wonder if the just the
up coordinates compared to the Neutrino arrival times has been






Einstein vs the most significant aspect of the CERN OPERA experiment is the rigor.  

The OPERA experiment was repeated over 3 years.  Extremely accurate measurements were made.   Precise
location of the emitter and receiver was measured and checked and plotted. Precise synchronization of the
emitter location clock and receiver clock was repeatedly  performed. They do not use Einstein
synchronization of moving a clock slowly or reflecting light once between mirrors.  They do not follow
Einstein's statement: “We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and
possible for any number of points; and that the following [that is (b2)–(b3)] relations are universally valid”.
Constant time and constant space or distance tools were used to measure random occurring events at
moving locations.  The entire experimental field motion is carefully addressed.  Einstein specifies a motionless
frame regardless of the real motion.



The experiment is similar to Michelson–Morley experiment in that the experiment was conducted throughout
the day and year.  That compares to the MM rotating table.  The speed of the neutrinos remained constant
within a range as compared to the earth regardless of the direction of earth’s almost uniform or constant
travel. This shows that the neutrino speed is almost constant in the almost constant conditions of the almost
constant frame where it is measured.   The work is being done in a frame with compound motion as in
classical hierarchy relativity.  It is not a static or inertial frame experiment as in Einstein relativity.    

Using the OPERA precision, we need to repeat the Einstein train thought experiment in section 9 of his
paper. Oh yes, that is what I have been suggesting for years.   Einstein claims time is relative because the
train passenger does NOT know the train moved between the light.   With the precision of OPERA, the train
passenger will knows he is on a moving train.  Or, the OPERA results could be explained using Einstein
techniques.  When Einstein can not explain an event time or location, he simply reverse engineers a formula
and value of variable time and space to account for measured event conditions.   


For OPERA
- Very accurate determination of location and time of the event was attempted.
- Very accurate determination of location and time of observation was attempted.  

For Einstein’s train thought experiment,
- Event time and location determination is was specifically prohibited.
- A person’s eyes detect just the observation time of difference events
— that occurred at some unknown time
— that occurred at some unknown location.
- The difference in arrival time would be less than a second
— with a train going thousands of miles per hour
— with the lights within visual distance.  


Even with the OPERA rigor, the data doesn’t match prior experiments sending neutrinos through earth.  
The OPERA error with rigor is small compared to Einstein’s significant error from specifically prohibiting
rigor and use of known data.  


Without conducting a repeat of the train imaginary experiment, we know that Einstein time varies to a
singularity fundamental flaw.  The flaw begins with section 9 where he claims that an uninformed person,
who doesn’t use rigor in experiments, is correct because he thinks he is correct.  He doesn’t know the
distance to the lights. He doesn’t know the event time. He doesn’t know something as basic as the train is
moving. He only knows the light arrive at different times

Einstein specifically requires that the train motion is NOT considered by the observer on the train. Einstein
claims the train passenger doesn’t know the train is moving so it isn't moving. Then, he uses that first
mistake to claim that the distance between emitter and observer doesn’t change between event time and
observation time.

Einstein claims the observation time dictates or alters the event time and location.

In a repeat of Einstein's train experiment and in the OPERA experiment, the event time and location is known
by all observers. In both experiments, the arrival time and location doesn't alter the event time or location.

Einstein explained why an illusion looks to be other than reality.  We know that a fan blade seems to
disappear with speed.  We know that a strobe light makes the moving fan blade seem to magically stop
moving.  A rotating disk with black and white lines from the center seems to be a gray disk.  A strobe light
reveals that the disk is black and white lines.  

Einstein is known to have a fundamental flaw that ends in a singularity. The end point is connected through
a path back to the beginning point which is section 9 of his paper.  The train thought experiment is simply an
explanation of an illusion.  It is not an explanation of variable time.  

Section 9 is wrong.  Time is constant.  Section 20 is wrong.  Gravity and acceleration are different.  The
illusion in 9 and 20 are simply illusions.  The conduct of the CERN OPERA experiment is only possible through
the use of constant space and time with motion of light speed being relative to the frame or field such as
earth.

The OPERA experiment emitter and observer are moving stationary objects.

See speed of stationary objects.   

In the Kamiokande II observation of SN 1987A, neutrinos were observed at three separate neutrino
observatories three hours before visible light.  One observatory observed neutrinos 5 hours early than
visible light.  The three hour earlier observation is considered to be likely due to neutrino emission preceding
the emission of visible light. The 5 hour observation isn’t considered to be from SN 1987A.  Another possible
explanation is that neutrinos and light emission actually occurred simultaneously. Some of the neutrinos
possible escaped the extra gravity that occurred as the star began to collapse.  Then as the collapse was
about to finish, additional neutrinos escaped before the additional light escaped.  A problem with that
thought is that there might be a dark period of about 3 to 5 hours if neutrinos and all light was pulled back
into the star.    

In the CERN OPERA experiment, Neutrinos surpass the speed of light by 60 nanoseconds over 730
kilometers. 60ns/730km = 0.08219ns/1km

- SN 1987A is 168,000 light years = 1.5894E+18 kilometers from earth.

If Neutrinos travel 168,000 light years = 1.5894E+18 kilometers to earth 60ns/730km = 0.08219ns/1km
faster than visible light, they would arrive 36286.947 hours or a little over 4 years before visible light.  


Copyright 24 Sep 2011 Updated 02 Oct 2011
Eddington and other eclipse photos and calculations prove ChR refraction.  

Refraction is the change in direction of a wave due to a change in it's speed when the wave passes from
one medium to another at any angle other than 90° or 0°.

- When in outer space, light travels “c” as compared to the outer space medium.  
- When in a planet or sun gravitational field, light travels “c” as compared to a planet or sun medium.  

When light leaves outer space and enters a planet or sun gravitational field, it changes direction due to
changing speed as it moved from the outer space medium to the sun or planet medium.  It changes again
as it leaves the sun or planet medium and enters the space medium.

A gravitational lens is a type of lens that refracts light as it changes speed when it moves from being “c”
compared to outer space to be moving “c” compared to inner space.  The lens edge or boundary between
outer space to inner space is the same lenses boundary that applies to any theory of gravitational lens and
orbital object that is either pulled back into or escapes the gravity field.

That is as specified in Classical hierarchy Relativity.

All the eclipse photos and calculations show the refraction of light due to the change in direction of light as it
changes speed as a result of passing from the outer space medium and goes through the sun’s
gravitational medium. Space and time do not bend.  Light is just refracted.

There it is.  Proof of ChR using Eddington and other eclipse photos and calculations.  

Copyright.  Don E. Sprague  2007 edited 13 oct 2011
Hubble Law uses one reason for redshift but ignores the reality.

[quote]
The galaxies we see in all directions are moving away from the Earth, as evidenced by their red shifts. Hubble's law
describes this expansion.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html

[/quote]

Hubble and others observed a correlation between dim stars and red shift.  Some redshift shows motion
from the observer.  They decided that other reasons for redshift do not apply, so redshift must be showing
the expansion of the universe.   

[quote]

Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as
determined by the red shift.
[/quote]

There it is. It is worth repeating:  

Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional
velocity as determined by the red shift.

[quote]
The Hubble constant H is one of the most important numbers in cosmology because it may be used to estimate the size
and age of the Universe. It indicates the rate at which the universe is expanding. Although [B]the Hubble "constant" is not
really constant [/B]because it changes with time (and therefore should probably more properly be called the "Hubble
parameter").

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/hubble_constant.html

[/quote]

The Hubble constant H is one of the most important numbers in cosmology:
- it is not constant because it changes with time
- it is properly be called the "Hubble parameter"

The most important CONSTANT numbers in cosmology:
- may be used to estimate the size and age of the Universe.
- indicates the rate at which the universe is expanding.
- is NOT CONSTANT
- is based on redshift that is actually interstellar reddening.

[quote]
In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that almost all galaxies appeared to be moving away from us. This phenomenon was
observed as a redshift of a galaxy's spectrum. This redshift appeared to have a larger displacement for faint, presumably
further, galaxies. Hence, the farther a galaxy, the faster it is receding from Earth.
[/quote]

Redshift appeared to have a larger displacement for faint, presumably further, galaxies. Hence, the farther a
galaxy, the faster it is SUPPOSEDLY receding from Earth.

The greater the distance light travels through space and is shifted, the greater is the shift.

[quote]
Vesto Slipher, an astronomer at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, was finishing a detailed study of the night
sky. He examined several of the faint, fuzzy "nebulae" that he saw in his telescope. He carefully measured the nebulae's
spectra - the amount of light they emitted at different wavelengths. He found that the spectra of nearly all of them were
"redshifted" - their light was redder than it should have been. Slipher knew that when an object's light was redshifted, it
was moving away from Earth, and that the object's speed was proportional to the redshift. He calculated the nebulae's
speeds, and found they were all moving away from us incredibly quickly:
[url]http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/proj/advanced/hubble/[/url]
[/quote]

It wasn’t really Hubble who came up with the idea.  He simply took or was given credit for Slipher’s work.   

Two main question emerge.
- Is there other proof of expanding universe other than Redshift?  - NO
- Could the redshift be from something other the object moving away? - YES

The distances between stellar bodies is not increasing proportional to the redshift.  

Since empty space is not empty, there is a lot of stuff for light to go through and be shifted.  Simply put,
there is interactions and phenomena in the subjects of radiative transfer and physical optics which cause
redshift.

The greater the distance light travels through stuff in space and is shifted, the greater
is the shift... DUH.

Copyright 13 oct 2011
Doppler effect proves relative light speed.  

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

The diagrams at the linked page show how light waves outside the emitter medium are altered
as compared to the waves inside the emitter medium. The animation needs to be expanded to
include observers inside the car which are equally valid observers.

Consider a light source inside a car. The light inside the car is not Doppler shifted inside the car
as long as the car is in uniform motion. The same light leaves the car and becomes Doppler
shifted.  The same applies to sound. Observations and measurements outside the car and inside
the car are both equally valid. The car observer is moving relative the light and emitter so the
light and sound is not shifted to them. The car and it's emitter is moving relative to the ground
so the light and sound outside the car is shifted relative to them. That gives light that changes
from not Doppler shifted to shifted. The same type of effect occurs with regard to the speed of
light. Inside the car, the light goes c compared to the car. When the light leaves the car, it
changes speed to go c as compared to the earth. The Galilean transformation applies to light.  
Doppler effect proves modified relative emitter theory and relative light speed.

Both the outside and inside observers know the observations of the other. In Einstein relativity,
the outside and inside observers do not know the observations of the other because he does
not allow all observers to have equally valid information of equally valid observers.

Copyright.  Don E. Sprague  2007 13 oct 2011
There is no proof of an expanding universe other than Redshift that is actually Interstellar reddening.

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

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

We accept that some redshift is from the light source moving away.  We accept blueshift is from light
sources moving toward us.  There are some blueshift and some redshift associated with light source
movement toward and away from us.  We should expect the numbers of the two to be similar. We should
not expect the extent of the disproportionate large number of red to be from the light source moving away.
  We should expect that most of the red is from Interstellar reddening.  We should also expect that some
of the blueshift has been altered by Interstellar reddening

Copyright.  Don E. Sprague  2007 13 oct 2011
Force field interaction.

To explain the concept of how light and other things interact in a force field,  I begin with a somewhat
appropriate analogy.  Consider the force at the center of a muddy river.  A suspended tiny particle flows
along almost unencumbered while a log on the surface flows along with more encumbrances.  The analogy
isn’t exact but substitutions should convey the concept.   On a very long river with very uniform flow, a log
will proceed at almost the same velocity of the water.  Water and a tiny particle will flow past the log.
-The flow/force of the river would seemingly not exist compared to the log.
- A casual observer would not perceive motion of the water or the tiny particle.
- A skilled observer with precise tools could observer the flow.  

Consider that, like a log on a river, the earth moves because of forces.  If the forces were removed, the
earth would stop moving and spinning.  That is because space is not empty.  It is very thin.  We basically
say that light travels “c” in an observer’s frame of reference vacuum.  Consider instead that light travels “c”
compared to an observers force field vacuum.  

With that we have:
- A force field propels the earth.  
— The earth resists the force field so it somewhat lags the force field.
- A force field that light travels within omnidirectional unencumbered.

The earth resists the force field so the earth movement is slightly behind the force field.  Light speed is not
actually relative to earth.  It is relative to the earth force field.  

This applies with relative speed of light.  That is, light is relative to the frame or force field just as it is
relative to different mediums.

Copyright Don E. Sprague 2007 edited 04 Oct 2011