EVIDENCE IN ERROR
CHAPTER 19
INDEX
TO OTHER PAGES
Light was
persistent in showing itself by a wave nature. We did not mind that so much
however as the fact that this made it impossible for us to conceive how light as
such came across the voids of space.
"Impossible to conceive" so we said. But what am I to say regarding this, for that which I said in the foregoing is correct, and yet why then is it so contradictory? Or do we still not perceive how contradictory such words are to ourselves?
It is contradictory viewed with the fact that we also invented
"gravitational waves" which have no substance, nor as we were able to
determine a waveform, and yet we allowed them to come from the far reaches of
space. Does not this make us
foolish? If not this, it certainly
is not wisdom.
Gravitational waves, whatever they are have of course never been found or detected, but that did not stop some from among us to invent them anyway.
Waves in the nature of light are at least detectable, but gravity waves if anything - showed themselves as nothing more secretive than magnetic lines (or force) of motion.
Conclusively, these gravitational waves (so called) cannot be anything
greater then the imagination of men. Accordingly,
we are speaking of "evidence in
error".
The
ether experiment seemed a failure, and while Einstein may have instituted or
promoted relativity, this more than anything else has led us upon a road that
is neither built and therefore without destiny. Accordingly,
I will not be out of line to say that this thing degrades man.
The null result of that ether experiment had many men puzzled. Two men, Mr. B.F. Fitzgerald, and Mr. A. Lorenz thought they had it in the bag. They suggested that the experiment was more human than machine in that it lied to them.
They suggested that the effect of the ether flow on the speed of light was masked by a contraction of the measuring device . In plain English, that the table shrunk as the light passed over it.
We of course give full credit to such inventions, and yet many of us fell
for this foolishness. But as to the
how they swallow such folly do not ask me, since I never was able to comprehend ignorance, or at least
not such illogical ill knowledge.
What now is good for the gander is of course also good for the goose is it not? Therefore, anyone coming back younger than his twin may never find his twin unless he searches for him among the ants. For if a measuring device can do this with a mere artificial light, how much more should we shrink walking in bright sunlight?
Foolish
talk so you will say?
I agree, but
then why do we do these ignorant degrading things?
Why indeed are we so bend on making fools of ourselves? We are in need of knowledge, in dire need of it.
TIME AND VELOCITY
We are quite fond of juggling time and velocity, and no less fond to discover unseen attributes to acceleration. A notion to find the fountain of youth (which I found many years ago and you have yet to discover).
Or to put it another way, why would anyone wish to become younger when he has all eternities before him? Yes, why indeed when time in effect is meaningless?
And so to your disgrace, your Einstein predicted that; "size and mass changes with speed." A point well taken since mass is inertia, and speed likewise is inertia, wherefore mass by its inertia logically does increase by the speed placed upon it.
But this is "not" what Einstein "meant"
by saying
size and mass, wherefore his statement is a grave error.
He moreover stated; that the flow of time is different at different speeds. But since time has nothing in common with speed, this can not be so.
He also stated; that light bends in gravitational fields, and that both time and light are slowed by gravity, and mind you, that acceleration is the same as gravity.
How much more ignorance then is one willing to pour out? This poor fellow never at all got anything right!
But now I am asking myself, why am I doing this? I never was one to teach elementary grades, or to remark upon such gross stupidities.
Yet let us first consider TIME. What
may we ask is time? Time is not a clock, a
clock being no more than a timepiece.
The fact that each revolution of the earth is a single day shall not mean
that therefore it is time in itself, but merely an accounting as such.
Time is like something immovable, an invariable factor akin to mathematics and coordinates, not anything physical, wherefore it has no effect on things physical.
A clock in all reality
does not tell time, but merely events at some given rate, which we call time,
(or the progression of time). The
machine, or the mechanism of the clock therefore - has nothing wherewith to
relate to time, but only an accounting of events.
It is therefore foolish to presume that a machine, a timepiece could be affected by anything as lofty as time itself.
If
we subject our timepieces to acceleration, or other forces that may or will
impair the proper operation of the machinery, are we then going to acclaim that
time slowed? (And
some did) But O how silly, for you did not subject the timepiece to
time, but to acceleration.
Such things now should be logical for they are plain common sense, and should never have come to an issue. Our cunning to utilize atomic resonance for a timepiece is all fine and dandy; they no doubt will make excellent timepieces.
But
in the nature of their mechanics they are just as susceptible to error as their
counterparts, since atoms are also machines, and subject to impairment by such
things as centrifugal force or temperature.
Let us therefore quit kidding ourselves, realizing that impairing the operation of any machinery has no relevance to time in any sense of the word.
If a bus-driver keeps a perfect schedule day by day, he in effect is a
timepiece. When however he decides
to drive faster or slower one day, he will not live longer on account thereof,
but merely impair his schedule.
I feel like an elderly person who is attempting to re-educate
not-so-little children that - it is not the Stork which delivers babies, since
they must be prepared for the truth of what being male and female is all about.
Little children however innocent must one day grow up and become big
children, if not rather man.
The fact that the light of a star is bend as it grazes our sun causing
the star to appear in a different position from where it is actually located (Figure
19-1), is as elementary as the apparitions to be had on a hot desert plain
where the road appears to be covered with water.
Or where to the thirsty wanderer a refreshing lake may appear all with
palm trees and fair maidens cast in.
The cause for this phenomena is commonplace knowledge, or at least, I always thought so. It is therefore beyond me how it could have been suggested - and much less set as a standard - that the bending of the light as it grazes the sun, was due to gravity.
I know that there are those among us who will do just about anything to
attempt to confirm Einstein in his folly, but in touching him you are bound to
make a fool of yourself as well.
Illustration Figure 19-1 demonstrates the sun with its atmosphere. And like any star or planet, its atmosphere acts on light just as a glass prism acts on light bending it from the normal when it is cast upon it in some angle.
And what more therefore must I say? Am I to insult the intelligence of everyone?
Utilizing experimental
knowledge, and reasonable common sense - there should be no question as to
“how” the star under such circumstances appears to be in a different
position from its actual position.
The same phenomena is observed with our sun which - when it appears to be above the horizon while in fact it is below the horizon (Figure 19-2)
This of course is due to the refraction of the light as it passes through our atmosphere, in this case our own atmosphere acts like a prism. For demonstration purposes I drew the form of a prism over the sun at figure 19-1.
And so my dear people, for you are in fact dear to me, how can simple refraction be interpreted as if it were gravitational force to bend the light instead?
Is it because we are so
desperate to find even the smallest of means to substantiate what has no
substance, and is most stupid to say the least --- like relativity?
Leonard
