Customer Reviews

Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

When I was in college I took a course in logical calculus. In that course the professor said, `If one were to ever formulate a tautology, any tautology, that was universally accepted by society as `true', you could then corrupt that society any way you wanted.' A tautology, in this case, was considered to be a `statement whose truth is based on itself' - a self-referential `circular argument' whose validity is self-contained, and not based on reality. An example of this is the phrase, `this sentence is false.' Is it true, or isn't?

I have come to believe that this modern day `tautology' is, in fact, the Theory of Relativity. I am convinced that what began life thousands of years ago as a simple paradox by a man named Zeno, has become a mathematical cabal by a man named Einstein. The error in thought is no different - one is no more profound than the other. The only difference is that one is buried under layers of incomprehensible math that even expert physicist seldom understand.

While my interests have taken me away from physics, I once was very good at it. My experience tells me what has gone on with physics has gone on in philosophy, in religion, and in education in general. We call it Relativism. Therefore my interests have led me back to physics. Yet, for me to be truly an authority in my field, I need to become proficient in this field, and I need a book that will do that.

In the field of physics, there are a few good books on this subject. `The Electric Sky', `Questioning Einstein', and `The Virtue of Heresy' come to mind. They approach the subject very common sensically and proceed simply, yet fall short of giving you a real proficiency in the subject. There are other books, like Mr. Kelly's, that are obviously intended for a more learned audience, yet leave out the `path' that might allow even a moderately proficient reader to fully appreciate what he is saying. Whereas one style preaches to the choir, the other is trying to convince the enemy. As in my own field of study I've come to realize, the one is already convinced, the other will never be convinced.

I think the trouble with this book is one primarily of organization, and secondarily of knowing who your audience is. While I have no doubt Mr. Kelly is supremely capable on the subject, the book reads like a roller coaster. At least for me, it was not presented in a way that gave me real confidence in the matter. Perhaps the book wasn't written for someone like me, but then, who was it written for? The audience I think it was written for, academia, will only further mock and ridicule Mr. Kelly. They will never be persuaded because their authority, their financial well-being, their reputations prevent it, nor will they buy the book. Therefore, it would have been better had he forgotten about them.

Mr. Kelly is a good writer. He knows his stuff. Some parts are very entertaining. Some parts are very informative. But some parts left me totally bewildered. Not necessarily because they were so difficult, but because the matter wasn't presented very methodically. It seems he was more concerned with belittling the academia that hold him in contempt than teaching me physics, something he keeps returning to at inconvenient times. That's too bad because I would really like to know what Mr. Kelly knows. I've gotten a hint, but that's all.

It seems to me the issue here is this: Relativism has made everything from physics to philosophy incomprehensible, therefore, the alternative approach should be complete common sense and comprehensible, top to bottom. I think Mr. Kelly should write this kind of book, a text book, forgetting about what academia thinks, who are the `good guys' and the `bad guys', whether the peer review process stinks, and just teach me the physics in a useful way that I can have confidence in the matter and the proficiency in a debate to hold my own. From what I've read, relativity deserves to be contested. Yet the present generation of physicists, like the present generation of philosophers, educators and clerics is lost. We will never gain them back, nor we will ever gain the platform they now preach from. Their belligerence prevents it. Books like Mr. Kelley's would be better directed at the next generation, truly explaining the material, giving the facts simple to complex, building as you go, explaining the errors and providing the alternatives.

Please Mr. Kelly, you are an educator. Give it another go! Teach me physics!

This is an interesting book, rather than just questioning Einstein's relativity theories he outright says that they are wrong. I've got to say that I'm not enough of a theoretical physicist to challenge much of what he says. There is one area though where I can challenge his new theories. He discusses time slowing down as a result of speed and says that this is incorrect. He says that time is absolute.

My understanding is that the atomic clocks that are in the Global Positioning Satellites have to be adjusted because of their speed. Exactly in accornance with Einstein's rules, their speed makes them keep time at a slower rate. In this book Mr. Kelly says that the clocks run slower, as if their base frequency changes. That's not quite true, they keep time at a slower rate when viewed from the earth because time itself is slower where they are or to be more precicse at the speed they are going.

In another part he says that the famous equasion relating energy vs. mass was developed before Einstein. OK, I can believe that. But those people didn't make the jump to a variable time as did Einstein -- that was the critical part of Einstein's Special Relativity.

As I said, I enjoyed the book, but don't quite agree. The essence of a good theory is that it can be used to predict things to be tested subsequently. One recent experiment proved that gravity waves have mass, exactly as predicted by Einstein.

There are cracks beginning to be shown in certain areas like quantuum mechanics, any yes, a new theory might come about sooner or later, but I don't think Mr. Kelly's thoughts make it.

Al Kelly should be commended for his courage in standing up to the Einsteinian science mafia. The twin paradox proves Einsteinian relativity is impossible. Einstein's theories should be called absolutivity which is another logical contradiction. It was created when scientists believed in the steady state theory of the universe. Now that scientists accept Hubble's big bang theory and the fact that the earth's velocity has been measured relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the big bang, it shows you can measure an absolute velocity based on Einstein's theories. Also, scientists believe there's nothing outside the event horizon around our universe. This provides us with another means for measuring a velocity relative to a point in space which is an absolute velocity based on Einstein's theories. Obviously, space and aether are infinite and gravity is an aether density gradient, not curved space. Kelly doesn't mention G. BURNISTON BROWN's discussion of the twin paradox in the Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical Society, Vol. 18 (March, 1967) pp.71--77, easily found on the internet. He provides another good anti-Einstein argument based on the twin paradox. I tend to think H. A. Lorentz's theory might be the best one. Also, Einstein insisted relativity depends on the existence of the aether which is denied by the physics establishment. SRT depends on the existence of the aether, the same way Newtonian relativity depends on the existence of space. In Lorentz's theory, the aether is NOT at absolute rest. A. J. Kox gives a translation of one paragraph from one of Lorentz's articles: 37 It should be emphasized that LORENTZ did not adhere to the idea of absolute space. In LORENTZ (1895) (sect. 2), for instance, he states that it is meaningless to talk about absolute rest of the ether and that the expression 'the ether is at rest' only means that the different parts of the ether do not move with respect to each other (AHESc-1988 pages 67-78).
This is given as a reference:
1895 Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern (Leiden: Brill, 1895); repr. in CP, Vol. 5, pp. 1-138.
The 1906 reprint can be downloaded from Google books.

The solution is painfully obvious. Aether and space are two different things. Aether exists in space and is NOT at absolute rest. Mass, length (Lorentz contraction) and time transformations occur as a function of velocity relative to the aether and NOT the observer. Gravity is a kind of aether density gradient, not curved space. Einstein stole ideas from Soldner (bending of light in a gravitational field), Gerber, Lorentz and others, changed them a little bit and created the most absurd and impossible scientific theory of all time. This lead to the corruption of the physics establishment which tries to destroy anyone who tries to correct it.

I've read the core of this work. I am convinced that Dr. Kelly did not have anything close to the mathematical ability to read Einstein's original paper, which contains very difficult formulas.
Instead, Dr. Kelly tried to get the gist of Einstein's ideas by reading the comments between the formulas. He siezed on one comment that seemed to equate rotating frames with inertial frames. In the book, Dr. Kelly's central argument is against this equivalence.
But Einstein did not equate these frames at all - Dr. Kelly simply misinterpreted a comment in the dense, poorly annotated Relativity theory. And yet, when he encountered books that spelt out Relativity in plain terms, he insisted they were the ones misreading Einstein.
Dr. Kelly's own 'theories' are mathematically facile and quickly lead to self-contradictions. There is a scientific mistake in the first paragraph of the first chapter. Perhaps the best use of the book is as an exercise for students, to find the errors?