This
is a review of a book written by my good friend and colleague Steve Bryant:

Bryant,
Steven B., 2016, Disruptive: Rewriting the rules of physics: El Cerrito, CA,
Infinite Circle Publishing, 312 p. [ http://www.amazon.com/Disruptive-Rewriting-physics-Steven-Bryant/dp/099624090X
]

Steve
Bryant’s remarkable book puts the kibosh on relativity where it really matters:
mathematics. My own objections to both Special and General Relativity (SRT and
GRT) are well known, being centered on Einstein’s flagrant violations of “The
Ten Assumptions of Science,” particularly his objectification of motion.[1]
As a superb mathematician, Steve adheres
to the rules of mathematics and computer science to clearly demonstrate where
Einstein made critical errors that invalidate relativity. Among the errors are
the following:

1) Einstein’s failure to correctly derive the
relativistic hypercone, which was a critical first step in his work.[2]

2) Einstein’s improper usage of types. In computer
science, which is Steve’s specialty, a primary rule is that one cannot mix
types. For instance, there are two main types: discrete and compound. Discrete
types are formulas that do not have divisors, while compound types always do.
Thus length and time are discrete and frequency (cycles/second) and wavelength
(meters/cycle) are compound. That means, for instance, that length and
wavelength cannot be used interchangeably as Einstein did.

3) Einstein used two-system mathematics for what actually
calls for three-system mathematics. Here is where Steve introduces what he
calls “Modern Mechanics Theory (MMT),” his replacement for relativity,
classical mechanics, and quantum mechanics. This involves an outer reference
system, which remains fixed, an inner system that moves in one direction, and
an oscillatory system that moves back and forth.

The
beauty of MMT is that it removes all the paradoxes and contradictions that
afflict SRT and GRT. Thus, for example, there is no need for “time dilation,”
“length contraction,” “4-dimensions,” “wave-particle duality,” “massless
photons,” “perfectly empty space,” and a “universal speed limit.” Nonetheless, Steve recognizes that SRT,
despite all its subtle mathematical errors, still has produced some valuable
first approximations in the description of electromagnetic motion.

His
analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 is superb. He points out
that the results said to disprove the presence of aether actually did no such
thing. First of all, their own calculations of the raw data show that there was
a less than 0.1% chance that the experiment supported a null result. They were
looking for an interference pattern that could have been used to calculate the
velocity of Earth around the Sun (30 km/s). Instead, they got only 8 km/s,
which Einstein and others mistakenly considered to be a null result. Second of
all, the equations they developed to analyze the raw data were for discrete
types (e.g., time and distance), when they only were capable of measuring
compound types (e.g., frequency and wavelength).

After
developing the proper equations for compound types, Steve used MMT and their
raw data to calculate a velocity of 32 km/s. With a calculated error of about 3
km/s, this is very close to the expected result for Earth’s velocity within a partially
dragged aether.

Ives-Stilwell[4]

The
Ives-Stillwell experiment of 1938 is among those generally considered as proof
that SRT is correct and that time dilation is a fact. Despite the famous Sagnac
experiment supporting the existence of aether,[5]
regressive physicists continue to blame the results of similar experiments on
time dilation.[6] Of
course, readers of this Blog know that “Time
is Motion” and that motion cannot dilate—only things can dilate.

Steve
is ever magnanimous in his claim that, even though relativity set back
theoretical physics for over a century, it provides a useful first
approximation for certain experiments unexplained by classical mechanics. This
is true, despite all the silliness that goes along with it. His analysis of the
famous Ives-Stilwell experiment tends to prove it. Table 7-4 on p. 253 of
“Disruptive” shows that the mean wavelength for their observed Doppler shift
was 15.69, while the value predicted by the relativistic Doppler equation was
15.72. MMT predicts a value of 15.69. The 0.03 difference had been considered measurement
error, but the accuracy of the MMT values for all eight of the observations
used in the experiment shows this not to be the case. The relativistic equation
simply is not good enough.

Wave-particle
Duality

Steve
uses Thomas Young’s double slit experiment to reiterate that light is motion—a
wave in the aether. He emphasizes and illustrates that multiple wave fronts
tend to reinforce each other, producing the interference pattern commonly
observed. When actual particles are used in the experiment, similar patterns
have been observed. He uses a resuscitated “Pilot Wave Theory” to explain how “bow
waves” precede particles, causing waves in the aether similar to those produced
by the motion we call light. This all makes more sense than the indeterministic
mysteries presented by quantum mechanics fostered by the aether denial common
to regressive physics.

All
in all, “Disruptive” is a must-read for all progressive physicists and
cosmologists. The implications of this book are far reaching. The
elimination of relativity also means the elimination of the Big Bang Theory. I find the hype on the back cover to be inadequate. After reading
the final copy, I believe more than ever that Steve Bryant is “Nobel-bound.”

[1] Borchardt, Glenn,
2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview:
Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/]

---, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond
Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.
[http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/]

---, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc

^{2},*in*Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs, CN, p. 27-31. [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643]
---, 2011, Einstein's most important
philosophical error,

*in*Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68. [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407]
[2] Bryant, Steven, and
Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Failure of the relativistic hypercone derivation,

*in*Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 99-101. [10.13140/RG.2.1.1404.8406]
[3] Michelson, A.A., and
Morley, E.W., 1887, On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous
ether: American Journal of Science, v. 39, p. 333-345.

[4] Ives, Herbert E., and
Stilwell, G. R., 1938, An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic
Clock: Journal of the Optical Society of America, v. 28, no. 7, p. 215-226.
[10.1364/JOSA.28.000215]

[5] Sagnac, Georges,
1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in
uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710.

---, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the
luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes
Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413.

[6] Botermann, Benjamin,
Bing, Dennis, Geppert, Christopher, Gwinner, Gerald, Hänsch, Theodor W., Huber,
Gerhard, Karpuk, Sergei, Krieger, Andreas, Kühl, Thomas, Nörtershäuser,
Wilfried, Novotny, Christian, Reinhardt, Sascha, Sánchez, Rodolfo, Schwalm,
Dirk, Stöhlker, Thomas, Wolf, Andreas, and Saathoff, Guido, 2014, Test of Time
Dilation Using Stored Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed: Physical Review
Letters, v. 113, no. 12, p. 120405.

## 2 comments:

However, as a "secondary" object, meaning the result of a "compound" type analysis, time does dilate in a relativity situation that holds between two different frames of reference.

I don't recall an analysis, by GB of Al Kelly's work. Have you ever digested his work?

Bligh:

"Time dilation" is necessary only for aether deniers. I used Al Kelly's analysis of the raw data for the fraudulent Hafele-Keating (1972) clocks flown around Earth experiment in:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68. [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407]

Dr. Kelly was a famous engineer opposed to relativity early on. Thanks for reminding me to review his work for the Blog. His most important book was:

Kelly, Al, 2005, Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories, Brown Walker Press, 320 p. [http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=132&subpage=books]

Unfortunately, like numerous previous falsifications of relativity, his was ignored by regressive physicists. Even Hafele-Keating is still cited as a proof of relativity. Believers want to believe.

Post a Comment