## Time and Atomic Clocks

Relativists swear upon the accuracy of atomic clocks repeatedly to prove time dilation. They think that their atomic clocks do not get affected by the physical environment unlike the older type clocks, and they swear that atomic clocks measure time perfectly.

If two atomic clocks showed two different readings, relativists don’t believe that one of them could have malfunctioned or slowed by the ‘environment’, but for them it is proof that Time ran differently in each scenario.

For example, if an atomic clock stops showing time when it is thrown into a furnace, then relativists argue that as proof that ‘Time’ has come to a halt in the furnace! And if an atomic clock melts and ‘disappears’ inside the fumes of the Sun, it is proof that Time is running backwards in the Sun!! We the ignorant folk may think that the atomic clock got spoiled (inside the furnace) or turned into fumes (in the Sun)…

Relativists (the weirdest thinkers on earth, who swear that speed of light is constant) do realize that frequency of light gets affected by gravity and motion. We know that light is the most fundamental stuff in this universe. So when light, the most fundamental stuff, can get affected by gravity and motion, how come the atomic clocks remain unaffected by the same?

When electromagnetic radiation can get affected by gravity, why not the atomic clocks, which are mere material stuff, get similarly affected? How can these ‘material clocks’ challenge the universality of Time?

An analogy may be drawn between weighing machines and clocks.

If some mass weighs 6kg on earth and only 1kg on moon, we wouldn’t say that the mass is ‘shrunken’ and hence mass is a relative thing. We know that weighing machines (and hence weights) get affected by gravity.

Likewise, if a clock measures 60 seconds on Moon, it may measure fewer seconds on Earth for the same duration of Time. It doesn’t mean that Time has actually dilated but it is due the fact the clock gets affected by gravity. Instead of tampering the absolute Time, one may introduce something like ‘timeness’ (analogous to ‘weight’) to account for the measured difference in time in different gravitational fields (and accelerated states).

Let me put the analogy in a simpler way.

Mass (Absolute thing)—-has relation with—-Weight (relative thing)—- measured by Weighing Machines and affected by Gravity

Time (absolute)— has relation with—‘Timeness’ (relative)—-measured by Clocks and affected by Gravity

So Time (like Mass) is absolute and what varies with gravity is ‘Timeness’ (like Weight).

### If slowing of a clock is time dilation-

Then you may also believe a stretched measuring stick as proof of space dilation. And if the same stick is bent, you may consider that as proof of curved space.

If we throw a metal scale of 100cm into a furnace, the same scale may expand and measure 110cm, but this doesn’t mean that the space itself is dilated in the furnace. (Similarly if you try to measure distances inside the Sun using the same scale, as the scale disintegrates and its particles spread throughout the Sun and you may claim that the entire Sun measures just 100cm because of the phenomenon of space dilation)

We measure spacial distances using measuring sticks or tapes. Ideally, that stick or tape shouldn’t get affected by the physical environment to consider that as a standard scale or an ideal scale.

Of course we may not find an ideal stick that accurately measures distances everywhere in the universe without getting affected by the physical environment (including gravity, temperature, stretching etc). But that is our limitation as humans and it is ridiculous to consider this stretching /lengthening of our measuring sticks as proof of space contraction or dilation. Our limitation and ignorance can’t be described as a fundamental character of the nature (unlike what the quantum physicists claim!).

Similarly we measure time by observing some physical process. This physical process can be ripening of a fruit, aging of a human being, movement of a pendulum clock or the ‘tick’ of an atomic clock. But what we want is – this physical process shouldn’t get affected by the physical environment for us to consider that as an ideal clock.

Ripening of a fruit may be a rough measure of time, as is aging of a human being but these get affected by so many other factors in the environment. So you know we can’t rely upon them to measure time. Our pendulum clock is obviously much better than looking at a fruit to know the time. Atomic clocks are probably more accurate than the pendulum clocks. But there is no reason to believe slowing of the physical process underlying the atomic clock as slowing of Time itself.

If slowing of a physical process is what time dilation is, then relativists could actually prove that in a much simpler way without resorting to drawing weird conclusions and without the pains of looking at the cosmic muons? They could just open a fridge and prove time dilation by looking at a fruit (or food item) that wouldn’t get ripened (or get rotten) even after a month!!! (and even publish that rubbish in their religious journals for the sake of those who insist for ‘published evidence’!).

Moreover, not all clocks get affected similarly by gravity: Atomic clocks tick slowly and pendulum clocks go fast with increasing gravity. Both clocks have their own underlying physical process to measure time.  On whose physical process we should swear upon to prove time dilation?

So, it is ridiculous to believe slowing of clocks as fundamentally same as time dilation.

Go to Next Page

Go to Previous Page

Go to Main Index

• Nehemiah Jacob  On May 2, 2013 at 11:22 am

Welcome Mr Srinivasa Rao, I was looking for such a person. This is Nehemiah Jacob from Chennai. I am deadly accuser of relativity especially the ‘Time Dilation’.

Today only I found this blog. Will be reading your others writings shortly. I used to have furious arguments with some of my relativity friends here and many of them can’t even answer some of my experiments that prove ‘Speed of light is not constant’

Glad that I found you. Will be talking to you more !

• Harry RoseVFX  On June 23, 2013 at 11:59 am

Very nice article. May I suggest to you, since you have embarked on a journey to reason, to also let go of the idea that “time” in some way or form “exists” or is “real” or a principle property of reality? Time is nothing but a convention, man made, a human invention. Not clock has ever “measured” time, all clocks define time, according to convention. The basis for the time convention is motion, and as you have so well pointed out in the article, motion is a process determined by many factors, all of which are “environmental” in nature. I therefore recommend to make the distinction, time = convention, motion = the fundamental process in nature (indeed the only process) clear, on every occasion when the issue of “time” is being discussed.

• drgsrinivas  On April 3, 2014 at 9:28 am

Thanks for the highly thought provoking proposition. And my apologies for the delayed response.
While explaining the double slit experiment, even I thought time and space can be explained in terms of energy patterns, but lately somehow I find this proposition disturbing and improbable.(http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/05/double-slit-experiment-electrons/)
As far as I can imagine, energy manifests itself as motion of mass. And what is motion? It is displacement of a body in space over time. Obviously to describe and quantify displacement, time is as essential as space. And energy patterns can’t be described or conceptualised without the’ framework’ of space and time. I think it would be beyond the capacity of material minds to describe this universe without imagining space, mass, time and energy as distinct entities. It would probably require a higher order intellectual or spiritual mind to unify them!

• James Alesse  On November 4, 2013 at 1:19 am

Dear fellow contrarian, thank you for this article! I have been working on various thought experiments recently and was trying to understand more about special relativity when I really had to take pause. Since mass and energy and time qualify as complimentary variables, how is it that the uncertainty principle as proposed by Heisenberg does not apply? The speed of light to me is just the “knee of the curve” where you really start to notice that you can no longer accurately measure time. As you have stated, we use matter to measure time so these experiments are in effect measuring matter with matter. More accurate atomic clocks are just more accurate accelerometers so we can better observe the effects of motion on tiny particles at speeds much less than the speed of light. Show me an anti-matter clock that runs slower at high speed, and now we really may have something.

• drgsrinivas  On November 4, 2013 at 3:53 am

Thank you for your interest in my article and for sharing your views. But let me tell you that while relativity is a stupidity, quantum science is a mania. Both are thriving upon our misunderstanding of wave mechanics. I am about to publish a book that reinstates logic into modern physics and debunks both the weird theories.

• Mahadeva Iyer  On February 27, 2014 at 3:48 pm

I have a more serious problem with time dilation. This is in respect of the “twin paradox” thought experiment to make time dilation look more spectacular. Aging is due to the metabolic process of cells in the human body and their death. This cannot have any earthly or heavenly correlations with the time dilation which is talked about. Aging is a biologist’s domain and not that of a quantum physicist. So the thought experiments involving someone travelling in a space ship approaching the velocity of light would get his life extended is more of a fantasy. This need to be realized by the teachers of quantum mechanics. The space traveller may find his age significantly shortened on the other hand due to the effects of space radiation!

• drgsrinivas  On March 3, 2014 at 9:36 pm

I can see your point. But that isn’t the strongest argument against the stupid theory of relativity. What underlies every biological process is some physical process. Relativists propose that physical processes get slowed down in moving frames and hence they believe that biological processes also get slowed down. They aren’t so stupid until this point.
Their stupidity actually lies in how they propose time dilation and how they prove this stupid phenomenon. Relativists are capable of claiming every observation as a proof of their weird theory. And they are capable of denying everything that exposes their stupidity by messing up between reference frames and by proposing further stupid notions like relativity of simultaneity.
Their secret of success lies in their boundless stupidity. Though one can never catch up with their stupidity however hard one tries, the following will give a taste of their stupidity.
http://debunkingrelativity.com/photon-clock-and-the-maya-of-time-dilation/

• Greg Williams  On May 30, 2014 at 6:58 pm

I am surprised that the author does not know that weight is measured in Newtons, not kilograms

• drgsrinivas  On May 31, 2014 at 10:39 pm

But the astounding stupidity of relativity doesn’t surprise you!
Ok, for the sake of the disabled ‘scientific’ minds like yours, let me substitute Newtons for Kilograms. Now let me check if your ‘scientific’ mind can realise the stupidity of the relativity religion and prove yourself as not part of the stupid crowd.

• Jeff  On June 22, 2014 at 9:09 am

Hi there let me start by saying I am in no way a scientist but buy my understanding a atomic clock uses light beams to keep track of time by measuring distances travel at the speed of light but we all know gravity has a strong effect on light e.g. Black holes and now apparently people have managed to not only slow the speed of light but even stop and release it. In my opinion the reason why people have such a hard time letting go of Einsteins outdated THEORY of relativity is because it would be admitting to being wrong about every thing in there carers like an old priest admitting there is no god.

• drgsrinivas  On June 22, 2014 at 5:39 pm

I suppose the old priest was wise in preaching ‘false’ theories and not admitting the ‘truth’. Obviously admitting the ‘truth’ that God doesn’t exist would ruin his own status. In other words he was being selfish. But I don’t blame modern physicists as being selfish. They are simply not intelligent enough to be selfish. The reason why modern physicists chant stupid theories is that they are not wise enough to know the truth. While quantum stupidity made them feel dizzy, the curved spacetime of relativity twisted their minds so much that they can no longer think straight.

The fact that you are talking something sensible proves that you are not a scientist. If you were a ‘scientist’, you would be religiously reciting what is said in the ‘scientific’ texts and would be swearing by some weird maths built upon some stupid notions.

• Miklos Zoltan  On August 29, 2014 at 2:30 am

I spent a good portion of the past 10-15 years with what I call self-debugging (which is to find already accepted false information in one’s mind). I have also been very interested in the psychology of science lately. As a result, recently I came to the same conclusion that atomic clocks must be affected by ‘change’ as opposed to time. Especially since I had to face the fact that ‘time’ as the majority perceives it does not exist. Instead it is merely the creation of our the mind as it attempts to process input in order to predict probable outcomes. Therefore I agree with Harry, and also recommend going down the rabbit hole called ‘no-time’.

I also liked your perspective on maths and agree 100%. It’s just a language. A while back I used to consider that it is better suited for science than everyday language as it is less supportive of ambiguity. (Or at least it used to be until imaginary numbers were brought to the scene) But now I realize that when language is used properly, there is no need for maths. Logic is a property of the mind and maths inherits logic directly from the mind. I have nothing against maths BTW. I’m a software guy, so you can imagine it’s far from being one of my weaknesses. But as with everything else, there is a ‘time’ and place for it. Going overboard and thinking that solving the universal puzzle can only be done in maths is a mistake.

Now back to the atomic-clock mania. It is unfortunate for humanity that the phenomena of atomic clocks is being interpreted and pushed as proof of time dilation. It is not a proof. It’s just an accepted assumption. I think the smartest thing Einstein ever said was this: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Of course, he is no exception from the very ‘rule’ he laid down. Let me blunt here: “He didn’t manage to explain ‘it’ simply enough”. The first reaction of everyone I know when they hear about bent space and time is that it is weird. As you pointed out, this weirdness is then overridden by the religious momentum the weird idea managed to gain. But what is the real underlying cause here? Is it really stupidity? The way I see it, the root cause is simply false information. We all seem to be born into this world with a blank mind which is later filled by the thoughts of our culture. It is not easy to break free from this ‘community think’. There are isolated incidents (like yourself) where people refuse to buy the ‘norm’ regardless of how many followers it has. The new theory which disproves Einstein’s mind bending reality model will come exactly from such outliers. (Same goes for Schroedinger’s stuff)

False information is very disruptive to the mind. We are no different than computers in this sense. If we work with false information the results (the output of our thought process) will also be false. A single false datum is enough to make our mind ‘spew all over the place’. We all have false information from the time we ‘enter’ this existence. A side note here is that I consider missing information to be false information for the following reason: False information is that which deviates from reality enough to be unworkable. In this sense, missing information can be thought of as information with maximum (or infinite) deviation from reality. Add to this the mind’s tendency to fill in the blanks by assumptions and you have a the perfect recipe for being lost indefinitely. The universal puzzle is clearly not an easy one to crack but I believe (now more than ever) that the key to it has nothing to do with one’s IQ. The key is to go full blast on weeding out potential false assumptions which in our current society means virtually zero support from mainstream science as they will surely perceive you as a quack who is rebelling because you didn’t manage to comprehend the grand theory. When in fact they are the quacks (as you so rightfully phrased) ‘chanting’ someone else’s theory as the greatest ever.

Now why is it crucial to weed out the false? What triggered my ‘self-debugging’ is the realization that humans (as a whole) can’t be trusted with information. They will misinterpret and alter the information unintentionally; as well as intentionally as dictated by their ego. As paranoid as it sounds, I came to realize a while ago that the only way I can accept something as valid is if I personally verify it. Not because I’m somehow special but because others can’t be trusted to make accurate and unbiased reports. Mainstream science is not only not an exception but at times they are the worst offenders of the very rules of science.

It was very refreshing and reassuring to find like minded people here who dare to question. That’s science. Building overly expensive particle accelerators (the chapels of the religion) is not.

Keep up the good work.

• drgsrinivas  On September 2, 2014 at 9:36 pm

Thanks for your valuable input. I am glad to have come across independent thinkers like you. I agree it is not lack of intelligence but is their religious belief in science which prevents people from realising the fact that relativity and other weird theories of modern science are utterly wrong. People in our modern society adorn scientists as gods. Obviously one wouldn’t question what one’s own gods preach!

For the vast majority of the people, it doesn’t really matter whether a scientific theory is right or wrong. What matters to them is just material comforts and because science has offered to them so many comforts and gadgets without which modern society can’t live for a minute, it is understandable why people believe in everything that is taught as science. If they find some scientific theory weird, they put that down to their ignorance rather than question their gods.

In olden days it was philosophers, in their quest to understand Nature, who ‘invented’ science. Then came different sub-disciplines including physics. Obviously the more one specialises the more tubular one’s mind becomes. And in modern society, becoming a scientist isn’t an easy thing – One has to study science for years and demonstrate that one thoroughly ‘understands’ the same and also please one’s professors. These ‘made scientists’ obviously can’t think out of the box, so they don’t realise the absurdities in science but keep chanting them louder and louder and make science ‘advance’. Those who realise the absurdities and argue against science cease to become scientists, lose their career and suffer humiliation.

Modern scientists ‘do’ science for better career and fame. But that is not the case with philosophers and they don’t bother about the material comforts either. They are not made after years of chanting or supervised education. They are made by themselves by observing the Nature. They derive pleasure by understanding the creation. The deeper they delve into the secrets of Nature, the more happiness they experience. Unlike what Stephen Hawking says, philosophy is not dead. The truth is that Philosophy is at its nadir in our modern times. The reason is that the formal/ structured education imposed upon the modern society is leaving few minds to grow and think independently. But we know that things ‘oscillate’ in Nature i.e. they come and go in cycles. And so is the case with knowledge and ignorance. At times people are more knowledgeable and at times they turn ignorant. True knowledge never breeds competition unlike the case with our present day science and technology. I believe it is time that philosophy reigns back, true knowledge prevails in the society and true happiness spills over.

• David Philip  On November 4, 2014 at 8:56 pm

Further to your comment about a Nature Article I am also curious and puzzled about a note added to an English translation of Einstein’s 1905 publication of “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies” in Section 4 – Note 7 states “Not a pendulum-clock, which is physically a system to which the Earth belongs. This case had to be excluded.” I had always assumed that all clocks were equivalent.

It is interesting to note that Newton in the Principia took due account of the time differences between pendulum clock observations at the equator compared to Paris or London resulting in the need to reduce the pendulum length to synchronise the pendulum clock measurements used for astronomical observations and acknowledged the gravitational variation with latitude.

From my perspective the fact that clocks perform differently travelling at speed and in different gravitational fields is not not really in doubt. What is really in doubt is length contraction. This is the magic that makes the velocity of light constant but has anyone ever observed this particular phenomena?

• drgsrinivas  On November 5, 2014 at 9:48 am

I totally agree. That statement from the ‘bible’ of relativity clearly exposes the distorted thinking of the religious followers of relativity. If a pendulum clock is physically a system to which the Earth belongs, why isn’t that an atomic clock not belong to the same system? What makes the atomic clock so divine?

• wb lee  On December 5, 2014 at 12:07 pm

Dr Srinivasa,

I fortuitously stumbled upon your blog, while searching for research articles on the effect of “time dilation” on biological processes (especially aging and cell division). it is my utmost delight to dip into your constellation of thoughts, critique and insights into relativity and quantum phenomena. WOW…

I have always view Time as a conceptualization of change in all guises. This abstract concept is represented using clocks, and other oscillatory systems. More “meaningful” representation will be seasonal changes and biological phenomena like cell division and aging.

Therefore, when i was exposed to the notion of time dilation months ago, i had deep qualms accepting the conclusions drawn from measurements of time taken on land relative to measurements taken on flight.
1, the experiment results lack biological relevance
2, gravity and motion could have interfered with the atomic clock, leading to an artefactual difference in time measure in flight and on land.

The experiment suggests that time is an entity (ie dimension) which can be slowed by gravitational field and motion. But to proffer this conclusion requires one to assume that the vibrational/oscillatory mechanism of the atomic clock is eternally consistent and not influenced by any variables introduced during experiment! However, this point is not amenable to verification. Because to verify that the measurements of atomic clock is free from interferences, one has to use another set of chronological reference, but there isn’t an Absolute Chronological device known to (wo)man to validate the atomic clock measurement.

This brings forth a methodological issue in science – any attempts to measure using any devices can never be truly validated. Any attempts at validation of any measuring instruments are, in some ways, circular and tautological.
Take for instances, measurement of temperature. To use a mercury in glass thermometer is to assume that mercury expands linearly to temperature changes. This assumption can neither be falsifiable nor verified using a mercury in glass system to decide if mercury expands uniformly with changes in heat energy – we cant use a mercury based standard to evaluate a mercury in glass thermometer . even if we use a thermocouple to validate the measurements, measurement from a thermocouple does not offer a “true” measurement, since the physical properties of a thermocouple will be affected by temperature, time, and reactivity of the sample with the conducting wire.
It is likely that all measuring devices interact with the experiment systems that they are supposed to measure. So there is no canonical references to validate if a measure is “true”. A measurement can only be “good enough” for an “intended purpose” if that excludes seeking “absolute truth”.
To writ large the constructed and tautological nature of physical concepts, we have the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the ISO, where “reference” or gold standard devices and specimens to define mass (1kg), length (1m), time (1s) are kept…and based upon which, devices are calibrated. So it is a grand exercise in circularity. There is nothing available in this world to validate these gold standard specimens, they are assumed to be the final arbiter of units of measurements! This caps off the tautological nature of measurement in science.

I digressed. Sorry.~ back to “time dilation”

I also think that for “time dilation” to be a meaningful concept, it must have a biological/physical effect. Furthermore, assuming that living processes (metabolic reactions, cell division) have a biological periodicity/clockwork that is not altered by gravity/motion, they can serve as a more rigorous form of time-keeping compared to physical oscillatory systems such as atomic clocks.

Therefore, I was wondering if there are experiments performed on living systems to test the effect of “time dilation”. I couldn’t find any yet.

For example, we have 2 samples of yeast cells from the same lineage, with the same doubling time, grown in the same environment. Sample A is stationed on earth, and Sample B is sent into space. If gravity and motion influence the passage of time (assuming time is a dimension), then we will observe distinct cell counts in sample A and B. Due to the net “time dilating effect” of motion, B will have a lower cell count compared to A.

But then again, the measuring device (yeast cell count) is confounded with the experiment setup! because we cannot eliminate the possibility that yeast cell’s biological clockwork/metabolic process is not affected by motion, gravity and other cosmic influences…
Somehow, either the environment/phenomena being measured interacts with the measuring device or vice versa.

From the standpoint of someone who has the most rudimentary understanding of physics, Time, when viewed as a fourth dimension (ie physical property) feels very mystifying to me.
I wonder, with my humble and lowly intellect, if physicists have consecrated much of their vast intellect chasing after the phantom problem of Time.

I am immensely grateful for your wisdom and insight.

Yours cordially and respectfully,
we lee

• drgsrinivas  On December 7, 2014 at 12:27 am

Thank you we lee for your comments. Despite your ‘rudimentary’ understanding of ‘physics’, I can see that you understand ‘time’ much better than the top rated physicists of the world. In fact not studying physics actually helps one to better understand Nature and its workings.
Your mercury thermometer analogy clearly highlights the limitations of the measuring devices and the so called ‘gold standards’. I think what underlies every biological process is some physical process/es. So as you have mentioned, even biological processes could get similarly affected by motion and gravity. So, whether we use yeast cells or muons or atomic clocks, we wouldn’t be able to prove time dilation as a real phenomenon.

• Eric McClurg  On June 1, 2015 at 1:54 pm

I’m in the field of materials testing and I too wondered how one uses a mercury thermometer to calibrate a mercury theremeter. According to ASTM a mercury thermometer can be used as a reference thermometer when calibrating mercury and non-merecury thermometers. However, the reference thermometer must be calibrated annually and doing so by measuring the temperature of the boiling and freezing point of water at sea level or applying a correction for altitude.

Just my two cents.

• Galacar  On December 6, 2014 at 1:29 am

to wb lee

One problem is that of course no ‘scientist’ knows what ‘time’ is anyway.
Or for that matter what ‘light’ really is.
In the meantime the ‘scientists’ use ‘time’ and ‘light’ for measuring (reading out) their ‘experiments’. Hence I would say, they don’t know what they are doing!
So, I really can’t take them seriously!

• LadyGreen  On January 2, 2015 at 11:51 am

Hi Miklos Zoltan.
I got the idea that you do not like the idea of ‘sqrt of -1’ numbers.
I would like to point out that 0, – numbers & fractions are all imaginary too.
Unlike + whole counting numbers which can be shown. all the rest must be explained.
Denying the existance of ‘sqrt of -1’ numbers is to deny half of all simple numbes & every single complex number.
All because the word imaginary is used when in fact every – number, every fraction and 0 are all also imaginary too.
Thankyou LG

• Gerald Garvan  On January 13, 2015 at 8:58 pm

I found this site a couple of days ago and it felt very much like coming home. I am so glad to finally find a site where logic is supreme. I finally know that my understanding that atomic clocks don’t prove anything and to believe they do is insane. With regard to the aspect of their proving that time travel may be a possibility is the height of insanity. If travel to the past would be possible how would something like an asteroid crashing into the sun and then going back into time to witness the event. Time travel would suggest that time had the power to turn the entire universe backward to relive the event. If there really is such a thing as time, where would it get that kind of power?

• Van  On March 11, 2015 at 9:57 am

Thank you for your article… Refreshing common sense. I think many intelligent people get so caught up in the analyzing of the bark on one tree and maybe even so proud of their ability to analyze that bark that they are blinded from seeing the obvious forest. I have been questioning this atomic clock stuff for several years now since I first heard about it… and with very similar examples…”If an elephant stepped on the clock in the valley, the clock on top of the mountain would prove time was now even faster up there?…If a plastic ruler started expanding because it got too hot, did distance itself change or the piece of plastic?”

In Genesis chapter 1, I think there is a reason that God did not create the sun, moon and stars until the 4th day of creation… He is letting us know that He invented Time and started keeping perfect time and counting exact days before we even had our first limited way of measuring days with the “rising and setting” of the sun. And even though our ability to measure has come a long way in accuracy, we are still limited. If God makes a promise based on time, He can be trusted to keep His appointment perfectly. Those still in the “Alice in Wonderland” dream world need to wake up to many realities that won’t bend and flex to meet our imagination… And no, we didn’t just all get here by pure chance either…

Another interesting Scripture where Time is seen as a constant… Hebrews 9:27-28 ESV translation: “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him.”

• Johan Frans Prins  On April 9, 2015 at 1:52 am

Spot on!!! I have been trying to publish the same arguments for many years but the mainstream “peer reviewed journals” reject them every time. Most of these publications can be found on my ResearchGate profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Johan_Prins
Modern theoretical physics based on time-dilation and this on Minkowski’s absurd space-time are all absurd Castles in the air.
I have also 15 years ago discovered super-conduction at room temperature up to 400 C (670 K). This lead me to the actual mechanism that causes super-conduction which is NOT caused by pair-formation of electrons. Millions of dollars are spent each year to study the so-called pseudo-gap in ceramic superconductors, while it is easily explained and modelled when not using pair-formation. But it MUST be pair formations must it not? A Nobel Prize has ben awarded for this absurd impossibility and now it is holy dogma.

We could have had superconducting processor chips 10 years ago which work up to 400 C and generate no heat. But this is blocked by the mainstream super-conduction “experts” all over the world.

• Galacar  On April 12, 2015 at 2:55 pm

Johan Frans Prins wrote:

” Millions of dollars are spent each year to study the so-called pseudo-gap in ceramic superconductors, while it is easily explained and modelled when not using pair-formation”

Yep, this is very simple a theme on this, seriously:

“Make te LIE big enough….”

On another note.

And, yes, how strange it may sound, fascism went never away!
It became covert, and now it is getting overt!
Just look around you! The beast is alive and ‘well”.

• Chris Burton  On April 21, 2015 at 5:17 am

So glad I found this, good work.
Thought I was the only one!
Everything I want to say has been covered above, word for word.

Had so many debated online about this, usually bombarded the same old “it’s been proven”, “FFS pick up a book” etc (acually from the last 2 days).

Been forced to find the truth myself.
Turns out it’s everything the relavists say, only they claim that the evidence PROVES what I like to call the ‘Intersteller’ effect to be a very real thing.
Where I am left undecided, but mainly against if anything.
Just goes to show how biased these sci-fi wannabee daydreamers are.

Right, have saved this under my favourites now as a place to feel safe 🙂
Peace doc

• Mike Roberts  On May 25, 2015 at 12:33 am

Hi,

I am relatively new to relativity (great pun I know) however upon learning the theory my first thought was that ‘surely this only proves the inadequacies of the way we measure time’. I’d be very interested in your thoughts (I am also new to your website and on an iPhone, so sorry if this is covered elsewhere) about creating an accurate time measuring device that could be used to disprove the theory. What could be used other than what is currently used to measure time in an accurate way irrespective of the forces of gravity and motion? Any thoughts? Apologise if this is a stupid question, as I say, I am new to the debate.

Kind regards.

• drgsrinivas  On May 31, 2015 at 9:35 pm

When we measure some quantity, we use some suitable physical mechanism. So measuring is a physical process. And there is no physical process that doesn’t get affected by its environment. (In fact, anything that doesn’t interact with and doesn’t get affected by its environment can be argued as non-existent)

So obviously a change in the environment does influence the measuring system and hence does change the measurement. While sane people would take that change in environment into account while comparing the readings, relativists remain adamant that their measuring devices are divine and hence don’t get affected by the environment. So for them, if an atomic clock ticks slower in a blast furnace, it must be because time is running slower.

And despite their religious singing, atomic clocks in the twin flight experiment never really ticked as per their weird maths. They had to ‘correct’ many ‘errors’ before they could prove their superstition of time dilation. And after all that they again insist that the data must seen from the perspective of centre of earth observer. I have explained about all that on this blog at various places and exposed how physicists routinely mess up things to prove their delusion of time dilation.

• Eric McClurg  On May 31, 2015 at 11:14 pm

There are other physical qualities that can be measured from moving objects and from the twins other than the observance of the passing of time which can be calculated to disprove “time dilation”. For example: If the twin traveling in the space ship were to receive an electrical shock from both the front and the rear which one would travel through his/her body faster? Or if the traveler was in a gravitational field would the effects of gravity change? Would the properties of gravity change?

Many of the physical properties and characteristics of matter and energy are an exponent of time. If you change the exponent of time by movement do you not change the physical properties and characteristics of this matter or does this matter now obey different physical laws? My assumption is that it obeys different physical laws. Therefore the Multiple Reality hypothesis is now not out of the equation.

• Galacar  On May 25, 2015 at 3:30 pm

Hi Mike

No, no stupid questions, mate. NOT asking many many many questions,
now, that is stupid! Just look at a ‘scientist’, he knows it all! Hence, he asks
no questions, so, he doens’t learn anymore, he only thinks he does.
Now, there is a difference. 😉

Well, about ‘time’ . I think ‘scientist” have no clue at what is ” time”.
You see time is non esistent, but the ‘scientists’ still use it to measure.
Isn’t that funny!
That is why I don’t trust anything coming from ‘science’.
Look at this world as a ‘virtual reality’. like in a computer game, where is
time and space coming from in ‘virtual realityty’?
Nowhere! They are postulated (defined) at the beginning by the programmers
So, why would we want accuracy measurements for something that doesn’t and
will never exist?

My two cents.

• charan  On May 25, 2015 at 11:25 pm

To mike,
There is nothing stupid in asking questions, especially in this day and age–it only proves that he/she is thinking; and thinking is the most difficult job to do today.One should not be apologetic in asking questions !
Regarding “time”, I think we need an evolved mind–probably with an higher level of consciousness, to understand the subtle connections between time,motion,matter and cosmos.
Just my opinions; feel free to disagree !!
Thank You

• Eric McClurg  On May 30, 2015 at 6:49 am

Humans follow orders very easily. Following orders is easy. You simply do what your told and historically you will be safe. It’s not easy to reject the status quo and come up with your own theories especially if the the established theories are taught by the Old Guard. Honestly, I commend Albert Einstein for coming up with a genuinely new perspective on physics and to be able to sell it so well. But unfortunately, it is incorrect and riddled with flaws. It has been put to the test and it has failed. What is funny is that the new Old Guard is once again resistant to change. It’s very funny and at the same time it’s also very tragic. Unfortunately, this demonstrates one of the most serious flaws about humans.

• Eric McClurg  On May 29, 2015 at 10:34 am

I’d like to make one brief and easy to understand thought experiment that will settle this “time dilation” bullshit once and for all. No math, no equations and no theories. Just a simple experiment.

The experiment goes like this. Imagine two observers (A + B) both with a basketball, a flashlight and a sensing device to detect the velocity of the fall of a basketball and a beam of light. For simplicity let’s say that the Earth or whatever surface they are on is flat and that light travels the same speed as a falling basketball over 1 meter. Both observers have in one hand a basketball and a flashlight pointing down towards the sensing device. Observer A will remain motionless while observer B will be traveling horizontally away from A at 1 million miles per hour. Observers A and B will drop their basketballs and turn on their lights at the exact same time. The sensing device will then measure which took longer to travel 1 meter. BTW, the sensing devices are wired to a nuclear bomb which will detonate and kill one observer if either the ball or the beam of light reaches the sensor first. In observer A’s reality both his ball and the beam of light reached the sensor at the same time, however he observes that B’s ball hit the sensor before the beam of light and the bomb went off killing B instantly. In B’s reality both his ball and beam of light hit the sensor at the same time, however B observes that A’s ball hit the sensor first and kills A instantly. Both A and B are now dead and both A and B are alive. This can not happen but in Relativity Land it is possible. LMAO.

• Galacar  On May 30, 2015 at 11:29 am

Eric McClurg

Very good! You covered the basics but it can be even more simple.
But the theme is the same.

I quote from page 17 of prof. Dingle’s book,
” Science at the crossroads “:

” It would naturally be supposed that the point at issue, even if less esoteric than it is generally supposed to be, must still be to subtle and profound for the ordinary reader to be expected to understand it. On the contrary, it is one of the most extreme simplicity.

According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates,i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the ‘moving’ one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless the question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no super- intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false. But as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort has failed to produce either response. The question is left by the experimenters to the mathematical specialists, who either ignore it or shroud it in various obscurities, while experiments involving enormous physical risk go on being performed. “”

To be found here:

http://www.marques.co.za/duke/dingle.html

• Eric McClurg  On May 31, 2015 at 4:01 am

Obviously, there are only two possible results from the above experiment. Either there exists multiple different realities, the number of which being dependent upon the number of observers which ultimately is infinite, or the SOL is not constant for all observers in all reference frames and the SOL is dependent on the velocity of the emitter of the light. Period.

• Eric McClurg  On May 31, 2015 at 4:14 am

God forbid’ it be the former possibility rather than the second. If the first possibility is the true reality then the ramifications of which would change all of humanity. People would not treat other people as if they’re reality mattered or if they’re reality even exists. Maybe this is why the answer has not come forth and has been hushed. Whatever the answer is I am determined to find it.

• Eric McClurg  On May 31, 2015 at 5:56 am

I feel like Neo in the “Matrix”.
“Just how far down does the rabbit hole go?”

If the multiple reality is true then God forbid. This means that only my reality is true and that your reality, your existence is only in my “head”. So if I were to kill you then I’m not really killing a real existing person.

Wow!

• Galacar  On May 31, 2015 at 3:10 pm

Eric wrote:

“Unfortunately, this demonstrates one of the most serious flaws about humans.”

I don’t see it that way at all!
It is just the way the system is set up. By design
It is a mind-controlled thing!
Most ‘scientistst are made very stupid.
They can memorize but they can’t think.
They have been dumbed down by their…..wait for it….. education what is actuallty propaganda! All this by design.

• Galacar  On May 31, 2015 at 9:48 pm

Eric McClurg wrote:

“Obviously, there are only two possible results from the above experiment. Either there exists multiple different realities, the number of which being dependent upon the number of observers which ultimately is infinite, or the SOL is not constant for all observers in all reference frames and the SOL is dependent on the velocity of the emitter of the light. Period.”

Duh? What about the theory being very wrong?

• Eric McClurg  On May 31, 2015 at 11:32 pm

“Duh? What about the theory being very wrong?”, By Galacar

Galacar,

What did you mean when you said that? Is the theory of time dilation wrong or are my alternatives to the theory wrong or both?

If either or both are incorrect then what is your hypothesis?

• Eric McClurg  On June 1, 2015 at 10:07 am

WTF? Over!

The existence of multiple realities or “Only my reality is one true reality” is the biggest, most wildest thing since Moses parted the “Red Sea”, no since Jesus rose from the dead and I get no responses? You guys must be part of this conspiracy as well. I don’t mean to sound crazy, but your lack of any response would tend to substantiate that claim. Seriously? Doesn’t anyone have anything to say about this?

• Galacar  On June 1, 2015 at 10:35 am

Eric McClurg wrote:

“Galacar,
What did you mean when you said that? Is the theory of time dilation wrong or are my alternatives to the theory wrong or both?
If either or both are incorrect then what is your hypothesis?”

Time dilation is wrong and non-existent.
Hence every ‘alternatibve’ theory build on that is wrong.
Its is all nonsense and bollocks.
Why do I need a hypothesis for?
It is a logical flaw that is made so much in ‘science’!
I don’t need any hypothesis. I am just showing the relativity theory is
stupid. Especially time dilation and space curvature.
It is like the rest of ‘science’. ALL bollocks and shite.
Yes, ALL of it!
That is why children learn to memorize instead of real logical thinking.
When they would teach logic to their children they would be able to see through all the bullshit they get!

Namaste!

• Galacar  On June 1, 2015 at 4:05 pm

Eric McClur wrote:

“WTF? Over!
The existence of multiple realities or “Only my reality is one true reality” is the biggest, most wildest thing since Moses parted the “Red Sea”, no since Jesus rose from the dead and I get no responses? You guys must be part of this conspiracy as well. I don’t mean to sound crazy, but your lack of any response would tend to substantiate that claim. Seriously? Doesn’t anyone have anything to say about this?”

Sorry, didn’t get you. what exactly do you mean here then?

• Eric McClurg  On June 1, 2015 at 9:52 pm

To Galacar,

Well? Since your belief on the matter is that time dilation is “bullshit”. I would like to know what your theory is. Does light travel at the same velocity in a vacuum for all observers in all reference frames? Does the Aether exist? Etc.

• Eric McClurg  On June 2, 2015 at 4:21 am

Galacar wrote: “Sorry, didn’t get you. what exactly do you mean here then?”

What do I mean? Don’t tell me you’re as dense as the rest of these people. If time dilation is true, ie. my clock runs faster than your clock and your clock runs faster than my clock, and if we were to meet up and examine each other’s clocks what would see? You would see that, in fact, your clock ran faster than my clock and you would see me acknowledge that, in fact, your clock did run faster than mine. However, in my reality the reverse would be true. So, the clock that ran slower is dependent upon who’s point of view is making the observation. So, there exists at the same time two different outcomes from one event and therefore two different realities. The ramifications of this are huge! For example: you could make a deal with an arch enemy where you would both (A +B) agree that whoever’s clock ran slower would make it so that a bomb would kill the observer with the slower clock. Since neither of you will observe to have a slower clock then the other one dies. You could also wager vast sums of money on who’s clock will be slower. Since both of you will observe to have faster clocks you both would win.

Now it comes down to this. If time dilation is true then that would mean that only my reality is the one true reality and everyone else’s reality isn’t real. Therefore no one else is real except you. You could rule the world but only on your own reality.

Is this what you mean?

• drgsrinivas  On June 2, 2015 at 10:28 pm

That’s interesting! BTW, what is the basis of your multiple reality theory? Is it based on the belief of constant speed of light or constant speed of snail?

• Eric McClurg  On June 2, 2015 at 10:50 pm

I saw a video that stated that both clocks would not be slower and faster than the other clock when they meet up because one clock would have gone through an accelerated reference frame which changes the speed of the clock that underwent the acceleration. The explanation was that according to general relativity clocks that undergo acceleration relative to a stationary clock run slower than the stationary clock in both reference frames. It said that this accounts for the paradox. But when you think about it, it doesn’t account for the paradox at all. I’m so confused.

There’s another thing I’m confused about. It relates to the accelerated observer who drops a basketball and shines a light beam toward the ground. To account for both the ball and light beam to travel at the same rate as would a stationary observer wouldn’t an accelerated object fall slower than a stationary object? I’ve looked everywhere and all that I find is that they fall at the same rate. This contradicts relativity. I’m soooooo confused.

• Eric McClurg  On June 3, 2015 at 9:26 am

OK. Sorry for the trouble. Sometimes it helps just to get it all out so that you can work everything out.

I’m still confused about one thing. Do accelerated inertial frames undergo time dilation? Einstein said that they do.

• Galacar  On June 2, 2015 at 11:16 pm

Eric McClurg wrote:

“Don’t tell me you’re as dense as the rest of these people.”

Ok , Bye! Sorry, I don’t respond well to Ad Hominems! see ya.

• Satyam Richard  On June 3, 2015 at 10:18 pm

Dear dr. Gonuguntla,

Thank you for your elaborate efforts to clarify the mess pseudo-science is in.
Also the book by Johny Jagannath is a great help in showing us the tricks and stupidities of Einstein and his followers. I really think all of this nonsense was promoted and fed to the media of that time in a premeditated plan to get rid of the ideas and proven, because working, inventions of Nikola Tesla. This giant was a direct threat to the power of big money and he had to be silenced. Wars are started in order to get control over the masses, it may look as if one person doesn’t like the other but in reality it never is just about one person but about the ruling class. The straw man exists.
Man is indoctrinated and manipulated from the moment on he is born to this earth, at least this is true for the last 100 years. It takes an independent mind to overcome the obstacles thrown up by false propaganda and at the same time there still remains the veil of Nature.

Real science is in relation to mechanical technique as wisdom is in relation to learning.
To realize that Purusha is the ultimate truth takes a lot of work and this work is not taught at university but only by life itself.
Time is not a clock and speed is not movement of one place to another. We agree about time but the notion that movement has another and real meaning is not that obvious. We will get there in time.

If I say that time is Genesis than it is necessary to be in a special state of mind to appreciate this. Genesis is the unfolding and realization of the virtuality of the seed towards its ultimate aim, the fruit. The power that makes this possible is time, the sequence of the potential towards the actual. Man is the ultimate fruit. Now how do you want to measure this time when everything we live and see is because of time?

There can only be reality, a vision of thruth if we get rid of a lot of false notions.
All this may sound to a lot of people as religious gibberish but in fact there is no distinction between science and religion. What has been brought to our attention during thousands and thousands of years, written down and constucted in monuments by our ancestors is still true in our time and cannot be sent to oblivion by a few pseudo-scientific lunatics.
We need an exchange of ideas between like-minded people because it is not mechanical facts alone but a change in perception as well that our world so desperately needs.

• drgsrinivas  On June 4, 2015 at 6:53 pm

Now I am starting to realise why Galacar keeps saying that it’s propaganda by design. It’s really mind boggling that some silly pseudoscientific propaganda by some crooked minds spreads all over the world, gets accepted and studied as science and fools the entire human race. I think that pseudoscientific propaganda has not only engulfed the whole world but also those who perpetuated it. So in a way it is now self perpetuating.

I agree with what you said about science and religion. At a deeper level, they are one and the same. And all the modern science/ technology amounts to nothing compared to the truth in our ancient religious texts. You might want to read my comments here http://debunkingrelativity.com/2012/02/26/big-bang-singularity/#comment-4719
http://debunkingrelativity.com/2012/02/26/big-bang-singularity/#comment-4964

Finally, I am glad that more rational minds are coming together and joining the crusade against the stupid religion which masquerades as science and which is responsible for all the unrest and unhappiness in the world today.

• Galacar  On June 4, 2015 at 5:04 pm

Satyam Richard wrote:

“Man is indoctrinated and manipulated from the moment on he is born to this earth, at least this is true for the last 100 years.”

if one does the research it is at least 6000 years. If one wants to reserach one has to research the real history by the freemasons. That is 33 degrees and higher. They are the “architects of all the deceptions” around us.
Want to name some deceptions: moonlanding, global warming, relativity, black holes, technology, evolution, nuclear bombs, sunenergy, cosmology, physics, chemistry, psychology, psychiatry, medicine, education,..get the picture?
With other words: ‘what haven’t they touched”?!

• charan  On June 4, 2015 at 10:27 pm

To Galacar,
“If one does the research it is at least 6000 years. If one wants to research one has to research the real history by the freemasons. ”
With high regards to your opinions,I slightly differ here.
Firstly, I hold an high regard for the Ancient Scientific Achievements of India, which are still unresearched and unrecorded,for ideological reasons that are complex to comprehend—which, is in a period of about at least 8000 years, though not exactly continuous throughout the period—which, as per my understanding, is more “natural” than the Modern Science.And, certainly it was not a “brainwashing process” of “dishonest arrogant investigation”, definitely not an half-baked understanding of a natural phenomenon they have enquired into, at least judging by the process by which they did it.
Secondly,I have a question–
Modern Human beings did produce a lot of technologies(genuine or otherwise); don’t you think credit should be given to that? And, is advancement of Technology is being considered as “development” of Science? Or: are fundamental assumptions of modernity woefully wrong?
Note: Though my wisdom and knowledge is limited, just shared some thoughts; please do not hesitate to disagree !!!!
Thank You

• Galacar  On June 4, 2015 at 8:00 pm

drgsrinivas wrote:

“Now I am starting to realise why Galacar keeps saying that it’s propaganda by design. It’s really mind boggling that some silly pseudoscientific propaganda by some crooked minds spreads all over the world, gets accepted and studied as science and fools the entire human race. I think that pseudoscientific propaganda has not only engulfed the whole world but also those who perpetuated it. So in a way it is now self perpetuating.”

Yes! It IS now self perpetuating..
What it might make it easier to understand,so it is less “mind boggling”
Is that behind ALL the (mainstream) ‘education’ (indoctrination) is the same force! When we start at school we learn to see this world in the way some ‘people’ wants us to see this world in such a way that we will be more easily controlled.So a lot of invisible mental lines or boundaries are being put in place.
(try to ask a ‘scientists about esp or ufo’s, there you have two of these lines!!)
If you also understand that at the top of these (mainstream) institutions are
very very dark psychopaths,(which are liars by design!), it becomes easier
to understand this whole thing.
So you see, the hoax of relativity is not an isolated thing.
(btw This is alos the reason why the ‘educational’ system is very left brain oriented, right brain usage would let people see the connections, so it woudn’t work anymore).
There is soo much more to tell but I hope that this might shed some light on this.
I also always add that the rabbit hole ( pf lies) goes very very deep!
And in short, it comes all down to this:

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic

– Dresden James”

Namaste!

• charan  On June 5, 2015 at 6:00 pm

” This is also the reason why the ‘educational’ system is very left brain oriented, right brain usage would let people see the connections, so it wouldn’t work anymore.”
Take a bow, for writing this…….hope the “people” understand this……….

• Galacar  On June 5, 2015 at 11:22 am

charan wrote:

“With high regards to your opinions,I slightly differ here.”

That is ok with me. I even encourage it, because I am out for the truth, nothing else.
The truth can stand on it own two feet and can defend itself, easily.

charan wrote

“Firstly, I hold an high regard for the Ancient Scientific Achievements of India, which are still unresearched and unrecorded,for ideological reasons that are complex to comprehend—which, is in a period of about at least 8000 years, though not exactly continuous throughout the period—which, as per my understanding, is more “natural” than the Modern Science.”

Well, I might be wrong of course. But the whole of this world is run by secret societies like freemasons, skull and bones, mothers of darkness, jesusiets,
knights of malta and what have you, If you study their history, it is about 6000 years, But as I wrote,I might be wrong.
I am always open to new information to correct the old one. Once you start to research this kind of a thing, you will find out that you have too!
Yu really can’t research these things with a closed mind.

charan wrote

“And, certainly it was not a “brainwashing process” of “dishonest arrogant investigation”, definitely not an half-baked understanding of a natural phenomenon they have enquired into, at least judging by the process by which they did it.”

Sorry, But I really don’t understand what you wrote here. Will you be so kind to clarify?

charan wrote

“Secondly,I have a question–
Modern Human beings did produce a lot of technologies(genuine or otherwise); don’t you think credit should be given to that? And, is advancement of Technology is being considered as “development” of Science? Or: are fundamental assumptions of modernity woefully wrong?”

If you have read all my postings you should have read that I stated different times that there is NOTHING because of ‘modern physics”.
It was ALL invented when the ‘aether’ was in vogue. AND not invented by academics mind you! But by lonely geniuses and inventors.
The academic world has stolen their ideas and inventions and now claim that they are because of ‘miodern physics;, which is really a lie (like ALL in this
world is at this moment). Hence our ‘modern technology” has nothing to do with ‘modern physics’! It is ALL propaganda.

charan wrote

“Note: Though my wisdom and knowledge is limited, just shared some thoughts; please do not hesitate to disagree !!!!
Thank You”

That is ok with me as you can read in my first sentences here. I always say to people not believe a word I say or write, but do your research.
I am then pretty confident people will find out what I, and others, have found out. Maybe not in details but at least in theme.

Namaste!

• charan  On June 5, 2015 at 10:04 pm

You wrote—
“Sorry, But I really don’t understand what you wrote here. Will you be so kind to clarify?”
I meant,to my knowledge—the Scientific Achievements of Ancient India are more genuine than that of Modern Science, and I am here, distinguishing between the terms “technology” and “science”; and, they were of genuine and philosophically acute reasoning—though I would not like to undermine the modern contributions !!
Let me narrate a small, tiny incident–
“‘ My mother used to share a ‘story’ that her grandmother told–that,during the days of my great-grandmother, there used to be a ‘lamp’ in the temple, which would burn for 500 years, and it did happen !!
Now, critics, often with little knowledge, call this as a conspiracy if not mythology.But, we have not at all tried to ask any questions here, forget about answering them.The right question would be about: what technology did they use, it may be crude or advanced, but the fact remains as it is truth.And also: how is it useful in today’s overtly polluting world?
I am not saying that this is the only way; but, ignoring this very important part of history comes at high cost. “”
And hence, I am honestly waiting for the truth-seekers, to sprout out the reality—I believe it does happen.I hope my explanation is clear now.
But, I would like to emphasize this—no,and no scholar/historian/intellectual of today is capable of speaking about Indian History(or even that of World, which is very important to understand Human Beings); if this is harsh, so be it, I’ve come to realise that this world is more harsher than the Truth.
Sorry, if I have spoken too much !!
And regarding your words on the technology, I agree with you, though (un)hesitatingly !!
However, ending this discussion about Truth here, though nobody today cares about it !!
Thank You

• Galacar  On June 6, 2015 at 3:53 pm

charan wrote,

“I meant,to my knowledge—the Scientific Achievements of Ancient India are more genuine than that of Modern Science,”

oK, Well, I don’t doubt that at all! Especially since one of my great hobbies is
“vedic Mathematics” and that made me interested in the rest of Vedic ‘things’
like ‘vedic Astrology” and “Vedic Physics” and “Vedic Cosmology”
I really crave for that kind of knowledge.
But there is more.
There has been highly technology advanced people thousand of years
ago. Now all this superbe knowledge ( India, Vedic and others) thjat is kept
secret for the ‘normal peeople’ , but is passed on in the higher echelons of the
secret societies.

charan wrote,

“‘ My mother used to share a ‘story’ that her grandmother told–that,during the days of my great-grandmother, there used to be a ‘lamp’ in the temple, which would burn for 500 years, and it did happen !!

“The light bulb” conspiracy, and you will find out that everything is
deliberately made NOT to last long!
To be found here:

the light bulb conspiracy | planned obsolescence

charan wrote,

“Now, critics, often with little knowledge, call this as a conspiracy if not mythology”

Yes, as I have written elsewhere, the people who don’t investigate have the
biggest mouth about these things. In reality, they have no clue what so ever,
And conspiracy? Yes of course! There IS a hige big, global; conspiracy,
to keep us from any truth at work.

charan wrote,

“I am not saying that this is the only way; but, ignoring this very important part of history comes at high cost. “

I agree, but this is also ‘by design’.

charan wrote,

“But, I would like to emphasize this—no,and no scholar/historian/intellectual of today is capable of speaking about Indian History(or even that of World, which is very important to understand Human Beings);”

I agree, and yet again, all this ‘by design”

charan wrote

“f this is harsh, so be it, I’ve come to realise that this world is more harsher than the Truth.”

Yes, well I don’t think it is harsh. Truth never is, Truth is just that, Truth!

charan wrote

“Sorry, if I have spoken too much !!”

No, I disagree, you can say or write whatever you want. As far as I am concerned.

However, ending this discussion about Truth here, though nobody today cares about it !!

Well, it seems I do and other people here do,
More will follow, I am sure, and there is a deeper reason for that.
But too much for here now.

charan wrote,

“Thank You”

• charan  On June 6, 2015 at 11:33 pm

• Vimal  On July 30, 2015 at 9:36 pm

Hello Dr. Srinivas,

First off, Thank you very much for the post! I’ve been beating my brains out to convince my mates about the sheer stupidity of relativity and time travel. In addition to that, the movie ‘Interstellar’ swirls around this theory. I realize that the movie is purely a fiction but on the flip side, physicist Kip thorne(who is the primary consultant for the movie) and other top physicists are so stubborn on black holes and other gravitational time dilation. I just can’t digest the fact that these people live in a fantasy world talking about going to one’s own past creating bootstrap and grandfather paradoxes. The question I have is do you really think black holes exist? And there is one other thing on which I don’t have clarity is the gravitational lensing, where gravity bends the light and takes a curved path and it has been observed via hubble’s images. So, is gravity so strong enough to bend the light or is it just that it appears bent when it reaches the human eye?

I did not major in physics nor have immense knowledge in these areas but I am an avid follower on topics relating to astrophysics. Once again I appreciate your examples to debunk relativity!!

Thanks,
Vimal

• drgsrinivas  On August 22, 2015 at 11:46 pm

True, the mythology of modern physics surpasses all other religious mythologies in terms of absurdness.

The phenomena which our physicists fascinatedly call as black holes and gravitational lensing can be explained using the Ether model of gravity.
A black hole is something like a whirlpool. It is not an all or none phenomenon unlike what they peach. And every thing that gets dragged into a whirlpool will ultimately come out in a different direction, possibly highly deformed.
And about gravitational lensing: imagine a ball spinning in a large pond of water. And imagine some water waves coming from a distant source. Obviously the water waves coming from the distant body bend around the spinning ball before they reach the observer. And the observer will feel the same waves (light waves) as coming from different sources. Thus we can explain the illusion of multiple images or the so called Einstein Cross.

• Galacar  On August 1, 2015 at 9:37 pm

Vimal wrote,

“the movie ‘Interstellar’ swirls around this theory”

in the centre of london and it looked specatacular.
However, once I was able to see it I was so extremely bored.
It really is just a piece of propaganda, and once you can see
through all the bullshit, well, the fun is gone. It was a waste of my time.

• Galacar  On August 1, 2015 at 9:43 pm

Vimal wrote

“I did not major in physics nor have immense knowledge in these areas but I am an avid follower on topics relating to astrophysics.”

Do you understand how lucky you are? That you are not under the spell
of the mainstream religion called “modern physics?
Btw there is more truth about being “under a spell” then most people realise!
I can explain it shortly, but most people won’t believe it.
And it is rather weird, considering our somnambulistic state of trance.
Yes hunny, we all have been hypnotized!

• Vimal  On August 11, 2015 at 8:11 pm

Hi Galacar,

I second that, we all have been hypnotized by ‘modern physicists’ rather.

• Junk Detritis  On August 24, 2015 at 6:58 pm

Dr G wrote “If we throw a metal scale of 100cm into a furnace, the same scale may expand and measure 110cm…”

Of course, if a measuring stick expands then it will UNDER measure distances and the 100cm is likely to be 90cm, not 110cm. Is this conceptual error by Dr. G just one illustration of his possible general misinterpretations of relativity? (I, of course, am completely neutral; I don’t care whether relativity is true or not).

• drgsrinivas  On August 28, 2015 at 10:20 pm

Junk Detritis, You seem to be hesitant to confess that you are a believer of Relativity (and probably other stupid theories of ‘modern Physics’). If you were a really neutral mind and not a religious believer of relativity, you would have surely realised the stupidity of that religion and you wouldn’t have been so ‘critical’ of the above straightforward explanation.

The message in the above page is so simple and crystal clear that further elaboration will only make it sound complicated and give more scope to the religious minds of relativity to play hide and seek! But anyway, I am giving you the benefit of doubt. In case you are not a religious believer of relativity but a truly neutral mind, the following explanation might help you to understand the stupidity of relativity (albeit with a lot more effort!).

Imagine that we synchronised two atomic clocks and we placed one of them in a furnace and the other in normal environment. After a while we bring them together and take the clock readings. Imagine that the furnace clock ticked 100sec while the clock that was outside the furnace ticked 110sec. If the observer is a relativist, he would interpret that as proof of time dilation in the furnace. If the observer is a sane person, he would interpret that as proof that clocks got affected by the environment.

Now imagine that we have two metal scales and we have put one of them in the furnace while the other one is at normal temperature outside. Obviously the metal scale in the furnace expands and each centimetre of the scale gets stretched. So each centimetre on the furnace scale would be longer than that on the outside scale. So each scale gives a different measurement for the same distance. For example, when the furnace scale measures some distance as 100cm, it could be 110cm according to the outside scale. Relativists could argue that as proof of space expansion inside the furnace! When I said “If we throw a metal scale of 100cm into a furnace, the same scale may expand and measure 110cm…”, I meant that the metal stick which was originally 100cm may measure 110 cm according to the outside scale.

• Junk Detritis  On September 1, 2015 at 5:48 pm

Thank you, Dr. G., how subtle the wording can become; I now understand what you meant to say. My criticism is borne only of my pedantry. Besides, I read this forum as entertainment, particularly in its use of language. It is quite fun really and I have recommended it to several people on that basis. I have studied relativity in the past and it is true to say that I agree with much of what you have said in this blog – hence my neutrality on the subject. Relativity, its existence or lack of it, makes no difference to me whatsoever apart from providing a medium for this repartee. Keep it up.

• drgsrinivas  On September 2, 2015 at 9:48 am

Thank you Junk Detritis. At last, after so much effort, I can now claim to have one ‘convert’. lol! (That’s how Richard Dawkins puts it in his ‘God delusion’!)
Coming to the entertainment part, I owe that entirely to the theory of relativity (and of course to the quantum theory). It’s not that I take particular care to make the argument funny, but

any serious discussion on relativity is ought to sound witty

And that’s one more paradox in relativity! lol. In fact that is the only real paradox in relativity. All other paradoxes that are described as part of relativity theory are just imaginary and don’t really exist!

• Sridhar  On September 23, 2015 at 4:15 pm

Dr.Srinivas,
The concept of time dialation seems to go against our understanding of time flow, it was very hard for me to comprehend how ticks of an atomic clock can be compared to passage of time as experienced by humans, I have posted this question here (https://www.quora.com/Why-should-oscillations-of-Cesium-atom-be-treated-as-our-absolute-reference-of-time-and-lead-to-conclusion-that-time-dilation-occurs) but did not get a conclusive answer. While searching for answers I came across your interesting article. though I don’t fully understand the concept of time dilation I feel this is due to my lack of understanding on the basics of physics hence I am making a honest attempt to understand it.

Thanks,
Sridhar

• drgsrinivas  On September 27, 2015 at 10:57 pm

Sridhar, surely you understand TIME much better than the physicists. We may not be able to understand concepts like time and space completely but it doesn’t mean that we have to buy the stupid preachings of the physicists ignoring our own commonsense and reasoning. Time dilation is only a myth. That explains why you don’t understand that! No sane mind can really understand about things that don’t exist, that are unreal and that make no sense!

Just like how lengthening of a measuring stick is not proof of space dilation, slowing of a clock is not proof of time dilation. If at all there exist a phenomenon like space dilation or time dilation, we will never be able to observe that nor do any material gadget will be able to measure.

• john northern  On October 12, 2015 at 9:38 am

Greetings,
While I agree with your logic, and I am thankful that you wrote this and other articles, I feel I must make a suggestion that if you want to sound more professional and more like a true scientist, you should stop using words such as ‘stupid,’ ‘ridiculous,’ . . .

• drgsrinivas  On October 13, 2015 at 4:51 pm

Thank you for your suggestion. It is just that, over the years, having interacted with ‘skeptics’ and participated in discussions on many ‘scientific’ fora, I have become obsessive of speaking facts and describing things/people as they are. I know speaking truth could sound rude at times. Now I will have to learn to speak truth selectively and cautiously so that I sound polite. Also, that way, my work gets more acceptance among the scientific crowd. But I never want to sound like a scientist, the title has been degraded and spoiled so much by those professionals that I feel insulted if someone even mistakenly calls me as a scientist!

• Galacar  On October 13, 2015 at 5:49 pm

john northern wrote;

“Greetings,
While I agree with your logic, and I am thankful that you wrote this and other articles, I feel I must make a suggestion that if you want to sound more professional and more like a true scientist, you should stop using words such as ‘stupid,’ ‘ridiculous,’ . . .”

You are trying to let other people talk ‘politically correct”.
Of course you are not aware of this, and I understand that, but in reality you are playing a very dangerous ‘game.’ Unconciously you are policing the thought
of one of your fellow beings.
If I see people doing ‘stupid’ things, I will call them stupid.

• Thinker  On October 18, 2015 at 10:11 pm

I’ve just found your website after watching a documentary on Netflix on the physics of light. And I also think that the theory of objects that travel closer to the speed of light being able to slow time a questionable idea that leans more towards nonsense.

If the idea of objects that travel closer to the speed of light exist in a slower dimension of time, would that mean light itself exists in a dimension that is timeless (or stopped)? I would think not…afterall, if a light year takes one year to travel, then it would be safe to say, that such light is 1 yr old.

I agree with you in that it is more likely that the accuracy of atomic clocks can be manipulated by gravity and other forms of the differences in environmental surroundings when on Earth compared to Space. Good job.

• nagarakshay  On October 22, 2015 at 5:04 pm

Dear sir,
While I fully agree that atomic clocks might not be too accurate there is a myth then if special theory of relativity is not taken onto account. The question is about correlation between magnetism and electricity
Consider this a particle having charge +q is residing stationary w.r.t grnd to a current carrying conductor. No magnetic force right?
Now the +q charge starts moving with the drift velocity of electrons in the conductor. (You will see why i chose this particular speed) Obviously the magnetic force begins its action.

However things get weird from the particles frame of reference. The particle says that the current is still flowing (positive is moving opposite negative stays put). Where does the force come from ? It is obviously inertial.no magnetic force can act.

Special theory of relativity accounts for these. Can you? I would like to believe your theory but there are certain clarifications Einstein did which no other theory did.

• drgsrinivas  On November 6, 2015 at 9:24 pm

First of all, I am glad that you at least allow the possibility that atomic clocks could get influenced by the environment, unlike the religious scientific crowd. Coming to your moving charged particle, I didn’t really get your question but I suppose it is another version of the ‘magnet and conductor problem’ which Einstein had ‘solved’ with his magical relativity theory.

I wonder if you have read my post (http://debunkingrelativity.com/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/) where I have discussed about some absurd models. Despite being absurd, those theories did successfully to explain/ solve some paradoxes, problems and observations. But that does mean that those absurd models are true.

Our scientists’ understanding of electromagnetism (and gravity) is so rudimentary that even if relativity were to successfully explain some electromagnetic phenomenon, that can’t really overthrow all our commonsense and logic in favour of the absurd theory. For someone who doesn’t understand the aging process, ‘the theory of diminishing value of natural numbers’ may seem to correctly explain the ‘puzzle’ why old people perish more often than the young. But for people who understand about aging process, there isn’t any puzzle for the absurd theory to solve.

Scientists keep uttering words like electric field, magnetic field and gravitational field but they know literally nothing about the physical mechanisms behind them. So whenever physicists use the term ‘field’, it just shows their ignorance of the situation. But because they have recited the term for so long, it became so familiar to them that they don’t even realise that what they have in their mind is just some mythical imagination. That is, despite their lack of understanding, they delude that they thoroughly know everything about magnetic field, electric field etc. So they use their observations from their mythical imaginary worlds to challenge observations/things in our better understood visible world. A sane person would extrapolate his observations from the better known world to the lesser known world to understand about the latter. But our physicists are going in the opposite direction. And that explains the absurdities in physics.

If you incorporate ether and correctly understand about magnetism and electricity, you will realise that everything is in perfect order and find them just following simple rules of our everyday life. And certainly there remains no paradox that requires the absurd theory of relativity to resolve. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2015/11/06/demystifying-electromagnetism/

Finally, let me quote what Einstein himself had apparently said “no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment/ observation can prove me wrong”. So, even if we believe that relativity correctly explained the conductor/magnet problem and many other paradoxes in nature, it only requires one observation that contradicts its predictions, to disprove it and throw that absurd theory into bin. And here comes that striking contradiction.

Twin flight scenario: Imagine that we are in the east bound flight. As per the relativity theory, we can claim that we are at rest and say that the west bound flight is moving at a high velocity. So according to us, the atomic clock in the west bound flight must experience time dilation and tick slower than our atomic clock in the east bound flight. But this is not what was observed in the famous flight experiment. In fact, the readings were exactly opposite to what we have predicted from our reference frame using the relativity formula. http://debunkingrelativity.com/twin-flight-experiment/?trashed=1&ids=3322

Basically there isn’t one true problem that is solved by the theory of relativity. Rather, what relativity achieved is only this: It hijacked and confused the intelligent minds by messing up things. And then it offered skewed explanations to the problems that it had created during that mess up.

• Avril Styrman  On February 16, 2016 at 12:38 am

I agree completely, very well said! But we also need a genuine alternative to relativity and the standard model of cosmology. Check out this conference, it’s about such models: https://lfs-fi.directo.fi/the-finnish-society-for-natural-/scientific-models-and-a-comprehe/

• drgsrinivas  On February 16, 2016 at 11:26 pm

Glad to know about that conference. I would have loved to attend if I had known earlier.

I am sure, Ether model explains every observation that our physicists claim as proof of relativity and quantum theory.
Actually we can’t view Ether theory as an alternative to the absurd theories of modern physics. That would be a shame to the Ether theory!

• Galacar  On April 8, 2016 at 4:57 pm

Ok, well I have adressed here and on other pages here as well, about the closing of the rightbrain by our indoctrinat… oeps ‘education’ and what have you!

I did write that the rightbrain (see, the word alone is telling you all, RIGHTbrain, 😉 ) is superior to the very very very very dumb leftbrain.
The rightbrain is the seat ot our intuition.

Maybe people have difficulty in believing all this.( it is my personal experience that the rightbrain is superior). But now the evidence is coming in!

wow!

“40 Years of Research on Human Intuition”

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1992193-40-years-of-research-on-human-intuition-report-released/

some exceprts:

1.

They write: “The expert intuitives had achieved a number of strikingly correct insights that have since been verified by investigations in mainstream psychiatric research on bipolar disorders. This observation suggests that skillfully applied inuitive approaches could play an even more important role in future medical research.”

(the people involved were NOT scientists mind you!)

2.

“Kautz similarly asked intuitives (again, non-scientists) in the 1970s to give some insight as to how we can predict earthquakes. They suggested looking for precursors in the upper atmosphere and ionosphere. This was far from what seismologists would have suggested at that time.

Yet researchers in the decades to follow would indeed look there for precursors and research in that direction continues today.”

So, you see, intuition is a very good thing.
Now question why so much in ‘Modern physics” is counter intuitive.

It is simple. If intuition is right then counter intuition is wrong!

There a you go, quantum bollocks and relativity shite.

Good riddance.

Namaste!

Galacar

• Here i am writer of Noorismic theory of physics and meta physics….and i found much intellectual and intelligent approach from you. Using similar approach i have tried to prove the weakness lying inside relativity at black hole singularity….thanks

• Rorer  On August 13, 2016 at 2:53 pm

I think it all boil down to a slopy philosophy of measurement itself. While a mathematician tend to be overaly concerned with calibrations, a physicist oughta understand that simple ‘bigger than’, ‘equal to’ and ‘smaller than’ are not only enough to understand phyc measures but also form the basis of the callibrations. This mean that there are some concepts that we must first come to terms with before any measurements can have any meaning, or at least we must take them at face value a priori. Take simultaneity for instance. It is ridiculus to, in principle, try to use clocks to determine if two events are happening simultaneously. Simultaneity is a simple earlier than, at the same time, later than issue that must be know before we calibrate clocks and/or use them congently. By simply noting that two clocks indicate different opinions for the same simultaneous events, we can tell that either one of them, or both of them are mulfunctioning. This is because we callibrated clocks having a concept of simultaneity intact, when we did it before any clock was invented to tell use of simultaneity.

• cadxx  On September 13, 2016 at 4:44 pm

There is not much I can add to the above as all options appear to be covered. However, it’s no coincidence that time and the measurement of angles use the same units. Time can therefore be described as movement. There is nothing, scientific or philosophical, that can logically refute this view.
The Free Dictionary tells us:
MINUTE
“n. Abbr. min.
1. A unit of time equal to one sixtieth of an hour, or 60 seconds.
2. A unit of angular measurement equal to one sixtieth of a degree, or 60 seconds.
Also called minute of arc.”
SECOND
n. Abbr. sec.
1. A unit of time equal to one sixtieth of a minute.
2. A brief interval of time; a moment. See Synonyms at moment.
3. Abbr. s Mathematics A unit of angular measure equal to one sixtieth of a
minute.”

And so we may think about time as an angular or rotational, spiralling movement, it is cyclic. If time is a cycle then we can assume that this discussion about time has been argued before. 😉 Science thoughtlessly adds (t) to it’s linear equations, but the universe is cyclic, no straight lines. Time is not time as we know it.

Much confusion is created by our linear/binary education and it has not gone unnoticed that science controls almost every aspect – everything has to be scientific with the possible exception of the arts. Education is about learning facts that are only useful for passing exams and TV quiz shows. There is also the question of the inferiority complex also created by education, we are not worthy of the mythical heroes that went before us. Science has mythical heroes to whom we can aspire to but never equal. But when I research these names I find they invariably did not do what it is claimed they did. They have been canonised by the high priests of science.

We are taught to dislike history and tutored in the art of enduring boredom. We are educated to be factory fodder in exactly the same manner as the Victorians.

• Galacar  On September 14, 2016 at 11:19 am

Yep, you are so right here. Especially about the ‘heroes”
As I mentioned before, ALL of these are “Fake Heroes”
Actually it is ALL social engineering.
There are documents revealing this techniqie.
Some fake heroes: Einstein, Pasteur, Hawkings, Bohr, and ah well you get my drift! They were or are all wrong!

Furthermore, ‘education’ is what I call indoctrination,

And you are right, it is about memorizing, not thinking.
We have a tv-show here in this country in which candidates are
tested for their ‘smartness”.

Gues what?! It is ONLY about memorizing. No thinking allowed.
When I pointed this out to someone a lightbulb went off! lol

What people have to understand is that ‘science’ is moving , and for a large part it is allready, towards a ‘scientific dictatorship”.

Maybe you are aware of the deeper reason for this:

A global policestate.

We are in the so called “End game” of this.

It is called “the Work of Ages”

People have to wake up to this.

I am studying this for over 15 years and now I DO see people waking up!

15 years ago, there were few people seeing what is coming.

Maybe not in my time, but one day this world will be a

“Wonderfull World”

Namaste

Galacar

• Joe  On September 19, 2016 at 11:50 pm

Hey, do any of you guys use a GPS receiver? I hope you all realize that your GPS receivers account for relativity, and would produce wrong results if relativity didn’t exist. Most of the thinking on this site is obviously the work of minds too uneducated to even begin to understand what is going on. It’s like arguing that the Earth is flat because you can’t perceive the curvature.

• Galacar  On September 20, 2016 at 2:09 am

@Joe

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwnnnn.

And try to use some logic instead of Ad Hominems and False Analogies.

Thank you!

If you do, you are more than welcome.

Galacar

• cadxx  On September 21, 2016 at 4:48 pm

The old old GPS Chestnut
“The article in Physics Letters A was written by Tom Van Flandern, a research associate in the physics department at the University of Maryland. He also publishes Meta Research Bulletin, which supports “promising but unpopular alternative ideas in astronomy.” In the 1990’s, he worked as a special consultant to the Global Positioning System (GPS), a set of satellites whose atomic clocks allow ground observers to determine their position to within about a foot. Van Flandern reports that an intriguing controversy arose before GPS was even launched. Special relativity gave Einsteinians reason to doubt whether it would work at all. In fact, it works fine.” Read it all here: https://nextexx.com/2152-2/

What seems to have happened at the time of the GPS controversy was that some physicists said it would work because of Einstein and other said it would not work for the very same reason. What this says to me is that even after a hundred years the very cream of the scientific crop don’t understand relativity. The emperors clothes become completely opaque but the space cadets see a fine suit of clothes and continue to believe devoutly.

I wanted to say something about logic as it’s not off topic for this page: For those who still think that science uses logic I would direct them to the web pages of Donald Simanek retired Emeritus Professor of Physics at Lock Haven University – in particular to this one: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm

In order to debunk logic he speaks of the logicians of ancient Greece in terms of modern science ‘had they known what we now know’ rather than of their achievements in their own day – which were considerable. Now everyone on this website knows that logic is the same as what we call common sense and his attempt to destroy logic (were it to be successful) would confuse all thinking world-wide. Creating mental confusion is something not unknown throughout science, in fact they have a name for it – counterintuitive. What this means is that we all need scientists to explain the things we don’t understand, like relativity which they themselves don’t understand! If everyone had access to logic, science could not survive because everyone would be asking awkward questions.

I have exchanged Emails with the professor on several occasions and put many of the points on this site to him. He not only refuses to answer, (he usually changes the subject), but he seems not to understand the reason for the questions or the questions themselves. This is what we are up against folks, a kind of induced mental block. But as he says ‘It’s all about induction’.

• Galacar  On September 21, 2016 at 11:13 pm

With regards to the professor, it was a nice try but I could have told you
in advance it is a fruitless undertaking.

THIS is HIS block, amomg others:

““It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

― Upton Sinclair”

Now here an exchange with a professor who is convinced he is right (but is wrong) about the GPS etc.

Check for logical errors by the profesor here, especially ad hominems,
circular reasoing, appeal to authority, strawman etc.
The whole piece just proves the professor can’t think straight!

June 21, 2011 at 11:38 pm
I just have a simple question: Why has no technology or anything useful to the ordinary person arisen from the theories of Einstein after a hundred years?

Mattusmaximus said

June 22, 2011 at 1:07 am
Ever heard of the Global Positioning System (GPS)? The GPS system functions, at least in part, on an effect called gravitational time dilation, which is a consequence of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. If Einstein’s theories were not accurate, the GPS receiver in your car wouldn’t work – period.

So, yeah, basically you’re wrong.

June 22, 2011 at 1:08 pm
I’ve gone into this in some depth on my web site and I think you will find that Tom van Flandern disagrees with your sentiments. http://www.n-atlantis.com/vanflandern.htm

Mattusmaximus said

June 22, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Yes, and the physics community disagrees with van Flandern’s ideas, for good reason: because those ideas are wrong. A big red flag is the fact that van Flandern continued to push notions like Le Sage’s theory of gravitation even after they were disproven by experiment (such as when Le Sage’s theory conflicted with the well-established results of the famous Eotvos experiment). When you continue to stick with a theory after it has already been thoroughly discredited via repeated experiments, I think it is appropriate to label you as a crank. And, based upon what I’ve read, that’s what van Flandern is: a crank. Color me unimpressed

June 25, 2011 at 11:13 pm
I really don’t see what your post has to do with GPS apart from creating a straw man by referring to another reference about something completely different.
Shortly before GPS became operational there were several physicists who said it couldn’t work because of relativity problems and now we find that the physicists are saying it works because of relativity. You can’t have it both ways. I think that this fact alone kinda squashes you reference to GPS as a technology that was derived from relativity. Maybe you can think of something else?
The cat is starting to push its nose out of the bag and the ordinary proles are starting to ask awkward questions about a lack of results. The counterintuitive is starting to look like deception.
I would think that after a hundred years, physicists would start to get their act together and at least agree on something?

Mattusmaximus said

June 26, 2011 at 1:55 am
Well, if you really want to see what general relativity has to do with the GPS system, you can read this link which explicitly shows where the GR calculations come into play: http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Publications/TPT11.pdf

Of course, you can ignore the physics and just continue to spin conspiracy theories, but don’t expect to get anywhere with that line of reasoning. You’ve got to do better than that.

Incidentally, don’t you have anything to say about van Flandern’s support of Le Sage’s theory of gravity, even though that theory has already been conclusively disproven through experiments such as the Eotvos experiment? You seem to want to ignore the terribly inconvenient fact that van Flandern continued to support a debunked theory long after the rest of the physics community had moved on, and this is what led to him being labeled as a crank.

June 26, 2011 at 3:26 pm
You have again failed to answer the original question.
What, if any, are the benefits of Einstein’s theories to those who have paid the bill for all of these years, apart from providing jobs for physicists and mathematicians?
Name a technology that has arisen unequivocally as a result of the theories?

Mattusmaximus said

June 26, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Fine, here’s another technology which is based on relativity: nuclear power plants. Ever heard of E = mc^2? If that formula, derived from Einstein’s relativity, weren’t accurate then nuclear power plants wouldn’t function. So there’s another non-GPS example of how relativity theory has been used to build actual technology in real life.

Incidentally, I’m going to guess that you didn’t even bother to look at all the evidence and calculations I’ve already provided showing that the modern GPS system wouldn’t work without relativity, so I’m going to end our conversation here. Have fun continuing to spin your conspiracy theories, but that isn’t good enough for me. You’ve just lost the opportunity to convince me, a physics professor, to treat your ideas seriously.

https://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/more-physics-woo-the-einstein-cranks/

If someone tells me proudly he or she has a Ph.D I have trouble to
control my laughter.

They think they are smart, but they have paid with their own money to let someone else control their mind!

What a world!

Galacar

• cadxx  On September 22, 2016 at 10:55 pm

Galacar
Academic scientists are the finest example of social security scroungers that I know. In the UK the science bill is equal to the government budget for Scotland and the tax payer gets no return on the investment.

As my mentor Charles Fort put it:
There are cynics who deny the existence of human gratitude. But it seems that I am no cynic. So convinced am I of the existence of gratitude that I see in it one of our strongest oppositions. There are millions of persons who receive favors that they forget: but gratitude does exist, and they’ve got to express it somewhere. They take it out by being grateful to science for all that science has done for them, a gratitude, which, according to their dull perceptions won’t cost them anything. So there is economic indignation against anybody who is disagreeable to science. He is trying to rob the people of a cheap gratitude.
I like a bargain as well as does anybody else, but I can’t save expenses by being grateful to Science, if for every scientist who has perhaps been of benefit to me, there have been many other scientists who have tried to strangle that possible benefit.

I have a page on fission and my own research tells me that Einstein had nothing to do with it: https://nextexx.com/undeserved-nobel-prizes
It was a lady chemist who told the Nobel winners how to do their jobs. This was at a time when Jewish science was banned in Germany. It’s on the Internet for all to see and yet they still insist that it was Einstein who invented the bomb, that Bell labs invented the transistor that had been around since 1910…….. aaaaarrrggghhhh I’m ranting…. I’ve smashed my keyboard. 🙂

• Galacar  On September 23, 2016 at 11:31 am

Fort as mentor! Good one!

About the Nobel Prize. Almost nobody really deserved it!

Most of it was really done by unkown ‘strangers; and ‘inventors”.

and btw, if you bomb countries and kill children and women, you can

also win a Nobel Peace Prize.(Obama)

That says enough!

Namaste!

Galacar

• khuram  On September 30, 2016 at 9:19 pm

I agree with your overall points against relativity mumbo jumbo and happy to see that you are already thinking on these lines which I have recently started though I was already against relative constancy of light speed stuff and accuracy of Michealsons Morley results etc.

In above article, I explained that time cannot be regarded as fourth dimension of space… Now after 8 years I am in need to revise my ideas of this article … So this article does not reflect my current state of mind. My advice to you is … you may be right as you think with sound logic … but you should adopt a balanced approach in your analysis … Means over-display of emotions is unnecessary … You should rewrite each and every point in more balanced style and then try to get it published.

Regards!

• drgsrinivas  On October 2, 2016 at 12:30 am

Khuram, thanks for your input and advice. It’s not over display of emotions but speaking the truth in simple and crystal clear terms without leaving any scope for ambiguity. My job on this blog is to help people distinguish science from stupidity, sanity from insanity and rational beliefs from superstitions. In our modern era, the boundaries between science and stupidity are blurred so much that unless expressed in ‘merciless’ crystal clear terms, people easily confuse lies for truth.

In this era of ignorance, ‘Diplomacy’ only helps bury the truth and is only useful when one’s goal is to gain control and authority over the ignorant masses.

Btw, I have only glanced through your blog- felt lots of wisdom. Will go through it leisurely.

• Galacar  On October 2, 2016 at 11:13 pm

@drgsrinivas

Yes!!!!

Put in another way:

“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act”

There is another thing.

“Political Correctness”, disguised here as ‘diplomacy’
is being used to put us in a small box, so to speak.
The end goals is that we hardly can’t move at all and are not free.
(e.g. look up micro-agression. People are offended when you smile
wrongly for god’s sake!)

So, please let’s ALL SPEAK UP!

Most people have no clue how iimportant that is in ithis time!

To put it more bluntly, but it IS necceasry

Political correctness…………Fuck Off!!!

There! 😉

Namaste!

Galacar!

• khuram  On October 5, 2016 at 4:17 pm

I always avoided controversial topics on my blog. But I receive courage after reading your blog. So I have just now shared a simple thought experiment on my blog which sufficiently disproves notion of relative constant speed of light. Please check this link: https://khuram.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/simple-thought-experiment-to-disprove-relative-constant-speed-of-light/

Regards!

• Savvy  On July 23, 2017 at 9:29 pm

Just found this site
Nice to know there are like
Minded people in this
World. If you are inclined
Chk.out
https://www.scribd.com/savvy 84th

Cheers

• N. Murugesan  On September 21, 2017 at 7:46 pm

Chanced upon this blog post and I am reading first time in the net about somebody clearly opposing this “relativity nonsense” – a greatest stupidity that was granted nobel prize!!!

Mr. Rao, Why don’t you turn your attention also on the latest stupidity in particle physics – the nonsense called “Gravitational Waves” and the stupidest experiment of all “LIGO”?!!! Or have you already written something on it?

• Savvy  On September 22, 2017 at 12:07 pm

GR never was awarded any nobel prize. einstein recd nobel prize for work function of electron /photon in the photoelectric effect.
Yes, LIGO is all humbug.
chk my marketing website https://www.scribd.com/savvys84

• nmurugesh  On September 22, 2017 at 7:17 pm

Dear Savvy, the question raised by you in your paper: “Does universe cares at all about how humans choose to measure time with their chronometer?” is perfectly valid. But your conclusion that universe has its own time is wrong. The entire concept of ‘time’ in these quantum academic circles has been totally confused by the concept of “kala” in HInduism. There is nothing called universe having its own time. Time is always relative. It is most stupidest to talk about ‘time travel’ and that too in scientific field…even spiritual persons are more sane!

• Savvy  On September 23, 2017 at 11:01 am

Hi,
Thanks for your reply. Dont know if you have read the other 2 papers on my site.
what i meant to say ( by universe having its own time ) is that, the flow of time at any point in this universe is dependent upon the resultant gravity at that point.
imo time travel is certainly in the realm of possibility

• nmurugesh  On September 23, 2017 at 12:08 pm

I am not a scientist, and have read about time travel and aging effects etc before, but came to know about its scientific terminology ‘time dilation’ only now. And it looks most stupidic for me to read something like this: “Earth’s surface is older by a year than its core due to time dilation..”. 🙂 🙂 How nonsensical to say something like this!!!

I could also not accept idioticity like “shuttle pilots age less than couch potatoes” and similar nonsense. Our biological processes do not care about how we measure time – you cannot change the aging process through time dilation concepts. Even assuming that gravitational effects can affect biological processes, its impact will not be so fine as to extend the age…and even then it has nothing to do with time at all…It is good to discount all the above theories as junk rather than trying to prove or disprove.

(not sure whether we can use this forum to discuss…if so, you can mail me)..

• Savvy  On September 25, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Rather good examples you bring up. Time and gravity are evolving concepts still little understood.
What i have found is that anti gravity changes the genetic structure as well as the molecular and atomic structure of materials. I have also found that time dilation is intrinsically linked with anti gravity.
Yes we could continue here or on e mail. My e mail savvys84@yahoo.de

• Vangrab  On May 7, 2018 at 8:05 pm

Savvy, antigravity doesn’t affect anything that at all, much like gravity doesn’t cause aging processes either,

• Savvy  On May 8, 2018 at 12:02 pm

Yes it does I have experimental results to this effect

• Vangrab  On May 8, 2018 at 5:46 pm

No, it doesn’t, in order to to know if the results and effects were truly from antigravity experiment you must first completely isolate all of the subjects that were in all of your experiments, like apple and everything-you should put them in some vacuum chamber and isolate them as much as possible, no gravity or antigravity affects any of these subjects that it makes them “older” or younger”-you first need to isolate them from biological and physical influences than we can talk about effects, but gravity and antigravity may affect them, but not in the way you are proposing to, they will not get older or younger-that is the same for all your test subjects like steel and candle.

One more thing, time doesn’t exist either,it’s all about speed and motion and change-but that’s not time, we simply perceive the concept of time completely wrong, reversing or speeding up processes is not time itself, it’s simply comtrol and manipulation of its biological/physical processes.
Forget about space ships, flying cars when it comes this, it just will not happen, at least not in a way that you are predicting (especially spaceships)..

• Savvy  On June 1, 2018 at 12:13 pm

Lol nice one. Hey view my new paper

Further Proof That Einstein Was Wrong
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/pages/v10(3)Version-2.html