Steve Bryant video interview on Einstein’s math mistakes

PSI Blog 20210920 Steve Bryant video interview on Einstein’s math mistakes

 

Email from Steve Bryant, author of “Disruptive,”[1] which I reviewed here:

 

"Hey Glenn, not sure if you caught my presentation / discussion with David a couple of Saturdays ago. If possible, would you be willing to share the video with your followers/community?

  

 Here’s the link: 

http://stevenbbryant.com/2021/08/einstein-says-10-which-is-incorrect-and-invalidates-relativity-theory/

 

Hope all is going well!

 

Steve"

 

---

[1] Bryant, S.B., 2016, Disruptive: Rewriting the Rules of Physics: El Cerrito, California, Infinite Circle Publishing, 312 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Bryant16].

 

  

Consupponibility and falsifiability

 PSI Blog 20210913 Consupponibility and falsifiability

 

Steve Puetz gets this week’s book prize:

 

“I have a couple of questions. If you can answer them, it will be a tremendous help....

 

What benefits do fundamental assumptions provide (such as the 10 Assumptions of Science) if they do not contribute to some type of testability (falsifiability) of theoretical formulations?  

 

[GB: Unbeknownst to Collingwood or Popper, fundamental assumptions are not falsifiable because they all involve infinity. For instance, we assume there are physical causes for all effects. This works for us most of the time, but when it doesn’t, we assume there are causes anyway. “Kinetic” theories are like that. For instance, gravitation currently is obvious and even has an equation although a physical cause has not been found. That is why Aether Deceleration Theory is the best gravitation theory because it hypothesizes aether as the collider necessary to produce the observed acceleration of gravitation. The beauty of The Ten Assumptions of Science is the consupponibility among them. Regressive physicists and reformists have learned to live with the cognitive dissonance engendered by the historical miss-mass needed to conform with religious ideas.[1]]

 

“Regarding the demise of the philosophy of science in the 20th century. Can you send me some references to describe what happened here?  As I recall, many major universities fired philosophers who were opposed to Einstein's ideas.”

 

[GB: Steve, just check this PSI Blog:

 http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/01/censorship-in-regressive-physics.html. That involved UC Berkeley, where I once was a visiting prof (but not in physics). I don’t know how widespread the firings of dissident physicists were. If you or anyone else has a reference, I would love to have it.

 

Also, here is the NPA Charter written by Dr. John Chappell:

http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2020/02/natural-philosophy-alliance-npa-charter.html. It provides a little background on what we are up against.]

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]

 

Faster than light speed?

 PSI Blog 20210906 Faster than light speed?

 

This week’s book prize goes to Joe Lennon, who asks:

 

“Glenn, I was thinking about something concerning faster travel thru “Outer-space”.  What holds everything up out there, and what also slows objects traveling via that medium is baryonic matter.  So, isn’t the key to increasing travel velocity having an electromagnetic emission
unit.  Electro-magnetic, and “weak nuclear" matter (whatever that is) severs or unravels atomic bonds.  Wouldn’t a unit that emits either of these properties break apart the baryonic matter that slows a vehicle's speed.  It makes sense that light travels so fast if it is an electromagnetic wave. Such a wave would sunder all of the baryonic matter that it encounters. The same should work for a vehicle equipped with machines that emits Electromagnetic matter, right?

 

Also, wouldn’t g-force on a crew piloting such a vehicle also be lessened this way? This should apply to achieving high Mach speed in a planet’s atmosphere as well.”

 

[GB: Thanks for the question Joe. Many readers probably wonder why I haven’t answered the old faster than light question before. Mostly, it is because the velocity of wave motion is determined by the medium. The question itself appears to descend from Einstein’s ad hoc considering light to be a particle. A particle is a microcosm, an XYZ portion of the universe, so the obvious conclusion would be that any microcosm, no matter how large, also would be limited to the speed of light. That is, if you believed, Einstein’s misuse of the Lorentz Correction Factor (see Infinite Universe Theory, p. 315) and that light is a massless particle with perpetual motion through perfectly empty space.

 

You are correct in implying outer space contains baryonic matter (space junk, asteroids, hydrogen atoms, etc.) that would tend to slow travel and might even destroy the rocket (or flying saucer). The resulting resistance would increase as a function of velocity. It would take over 80 years to reach the nearest star via today’s tech. It would take 4 years even at the speed of light.

 

So far, throughout our examinations of 4.5 billion years of geological formations, we have not found one footprint or one piece of exotic metal from anyone from Alpha Centauri. Looks like we won’t be returning the hypothesized favor imagined by UFO buffs any time soon.]