ECLIPSE 1919 AND THE GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY

Paperback, 

CreateSpace, Full Color

INTRODUCTION

   Alphonsus Kelly, an Ireland engineer, in his lecture at Trinity College, Dublin, on February 15, 1996, stated that the Einstein’s Relativity theory might be wrong. Kelly revealed the experiment of Sagnac, the French physicist in the year 1914, showing that the time taken by a light to complete one rotation is found to be different from the time taken by one rotation in opposite direction. The Sagnac’s experiment proved that the speed of light was not constant. It is different from Einstein’s theory stating that the light velocity is constant.

WHAT IS THE SPEED OF GRAVITY ?

This is a very interesting and timely question. There was recently an experiment which aimed to measure the speed of gravity, and there has been some disagreement among scientists over the interpretation of the results.

In the theory of relativity, the speed of gravity should be equal to the speed of light, since the theoretical "particles" that carry gravity (sometimes called gravitons) are massless particles, just like photons (the particles that carry light). The light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth, so that if the Sun suddenly disappeared it would take 8 minutes before it got dark. Similarly the Earth would also feel the effects of the Sun's gravity for 8 minutes after it magically vanished.

In September 2002, two US scientists made some very accurate measurements of the position of a quasar as it passed behind Jupiter. They argued that the exact amount of apparent motion of the quasar (as the path of the radio waves from it was bent in Jupiter's gravitational field) depended on both the speed of light AND the speed of gravity. The measurements they took then proved that the speed of gravity is the same as that of light, ruling out some of the more bizarre modifications to the laws of gravity which have been proposed, and further backing General Relativity (BBC news articleon the experiment).

However, other astronomers disagree that the experiment is able to measure the speed of gravity, arguing that the effect is much smaller than the scientists claim and that (in effect) they got their arithmatic wrong when they decided that the speed of gravity did come into the equations. They are not claiming that the speed of gravity is different to that of light, just that it could not be measured in the experiment.

I have to confess that I don't have enough knowledge of the details of General Relativity to know who is right, but I think this is an interesting insight into how science works.

So the short answer is that it is thought that the speed of gravity should be equal to the speed of light, and that there is a ongoing disagreement over whether or not that has actually been measured.

READ MORE :  Speed of gravity

Why Einstein was wrong and Newton was right

It may surprise you to learn that the speed of gravity is something of an ongoing debate among many cosmologists today. 

The textbook answer to the question “what is the speed of gravity?” is that it propagates at the speed of light. This answer is derived from Einstein’s version of relativity, which demands that nothing be able to propagate faster than the speed of light. Yet there is a large body of physical evidence that contradicts this theoretical assertion.

In 1998, physicist Tom Van Flandern authored a paper in Physics Letters A that remains one of the best refutations of Einstein’s version of relativity ever published. Van Flandern argues that Hendrik Lorentz’s version of relativity, which incorporates an aether that all matter moves through, is more correct than Einstein’s version, based on experimental observations about the speed of gravity. Lorentz and Einstein’s versions of relativity are actually very similar. The main difference being that the speed of light is not a limiting factor in Lorentz’s version of relativity. Van Flandern argues that the speed of gravity is far faster than the speed of light, just as Newton’s laws describe it to be. Newton’s laws declare gravity to propagate instantaneously.

I’m sure by now you may be wondering what kind of proof does Van Flandern have to offer? Van Flandern starts out by demonstrating that the visible light arriving from the Sun to Earth comes from a measurably different location in the sky than the point that the Earth is accelerating towards in space. This is because light propagates at light speed, while gravity propagates at infinite speed. The fact that the Earth is not accelerating toward the visible location of the Sun, but rather 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun (where the Sun will visibly be 8.3 minutes in the future) is very strong evidence against gravity propagating at the speed of light. This same light delay effect is seen in the positions of stars as well.

If gravity propagated between the Sun and the Earth at the same speed as visible light, the Earth would double the distance from the Sun in 1200 years, which obviously isn’t happening. Many other notable physicists besides Newton and Lorentz also concluded that orbital calculations must be made using an infinite speed of gravity. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington’s orbital calculations rely on gravity having an infinite speed, and Pierre-Simon Laplace calculated gravity to have a speed of at least 10^8 times the speed of light.

Van Flandern goes on to discuss GPS clocks, which are often cited as being proof positive of Einstein’s relativity. It may surprise you, but the GPS system doesn’t actually use Einstein’s field equations. In fact, this paper by the U.S. Naval Observatory tells us that, while incorporating Einstein’s equations into the system may slightly improve accuracy, the system itself doesn’t rely on them at all. To quote the opening line of the paper, “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.”

Van Flandern explains why this is so:

Finally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No “relativity of simultaneity” corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.

Van Flandern also discusses the famous Michelson-Morely experiment, the Michelson-Gale experiment, and the Sagnac experiment, which are often cited as discrediting Lorentz’s version of relativity. The truth of the matter is that Lorentz’s version of relativity can easily account for the observations if one simply assumes a local gravity field with preferred frame for local observers, rather than a universal gravity field. Further, at the time, the wave nature of matter has not yet been discovered by Louis de Broglie.

Van Flandern concludes his paper by saying:

Near the end of his career, Lorentz is quoted as having graciously conceded the contest: “My theory can obtain all the same results as special relativity, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” (private communication from C.O. Alley) Today, with hindsight, we might make a somewhat different assessment: “Special relativity can explain all the experimental results in Table II that Lorentzian relativity can, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” Even so, SR cannot explain the faster-than-light propagation of gravity, although LR readily can.

We conclude that the speed of gravity may provide the new insight physics has been awaiting to lead the way to unification of the fundamental forces.

If this article has peaked your interest in alternative cosmology, please set some time aside to watch Thunderbolts of the Gods. I guarantee that this video will change your perspective on our universe.

READ MORE :  Watch Video

THE EINSTEIN GRAVITATIONAL FIELD LACKS A TRUE TENSOR

Cosmology scientists inform us that they definitely understand the universe expansion. They have proven from extensive scientific study that our universe was born 13.7 billion years ago in a Big Bang explosion. They can explain in minute detail the many stages of this process that have occurred since that explosion. However, the most astounding part of the Big Bang story is that our universe began as a singularity, which literally means a condition of infinite mass density. Cosmologists insist that our whole universe was microscopic in size at the instant of the Big Bang, and some claim it was smaller than a proton.

We are supposed to believe that the many tens of billions of galaxies of our universe, each containing as many as 100 billion stars, were initially squeezed into a microscopically small body, 13.7 billion years ago. This 13.7 billion-year age of our universe may seem like a long time, but it is only 3 times the age of our earth (4.6 billion years), and stars have been observed in our Milky Way galaxy that are at least 13.4 billion years old. To explain observational data, cosmologists have concluded that our present universe must consist primarily of dark energy and non-physical dark matter, which are unrelated to any energy or matter that we can observe on earth.

What is the basis for these science-fiction claims by cosmologists? Their research is based on computer studies of Einstein’s General theory of Relativity. Obviously, these conclusions must be correct. After all, who can doubt the great wisdom of Albert Einstein?

But Einstein strongly opposed singularity predictions of his theory. The cosmologists reply, “That does not matter. Since Einstein did not have a computer, he could not realize that his equations definitely require singularities. Our computer simulations of General Relativity have proven that the Big Bang must have begun as a singularity, and a massive neutron star must collapse to form a singularity that we call a Black Hole.” (According to Black Hole theory, all of the mass of a Black Hole is concentrated as a singularity at its center.)

Astronomers claim to have proven that Black Holes are physically real, because they are finding many highly compact, dark bodies that are too massive to be neutron stars, and must be Black Holes. Therefore, even though a singularity may seem like science-fiction, these astronomical observations have definitely proven that singularities actually exist in physical reality.

This is the claim made by cosmologists to support the physical reality of singularities. The fallacy of this reasoning is the assumption that the equations of General Relativity are absolutely correct. However, in 1945 Einstein admitted that his theory does not hold exactly under conditions of extreme density of field and matter, and so it cannot be used to predict a physical singularity. (See Article 1,1, page 18 and Reference 7.)

These issues show that to appreciate the true nature of our universe, the reader must understand cosmology, and this requires the knowledge of Einstein’s General theory of Relativity. “But that is impossible”, you say. “Everyone knows that only a few brilliant scientists can comprehend General Relativity!” That common belief is nonsense! In Article 1,1, this website provides a simple yet thorough and scientifically accurate explanation of General Relativity, which can be readily understood by anyone with a high-school knowledge of algebra.

The Einstein theory provides the basis for explaining the universe expansion. Einstein maintained that gravity is not an attractive force, as Newton claimed; gravity is a curvature of space. Within our solar system, the curvature of space produced by gravity is accurately approximated by Newton's theory, which assumes that celestial bodies are pulled together by gravitational forces. However, when we model the universe as a whole, the curvature of space produced by gravity manifests itself as an expansion of the universe.

Why did Einstein not recognize that the curvature of space embodied in General Relativity explains the universe expansion? The answer is simple. Einstein was unable to derive a complete gravitational field equation to specify his General theory of Relativity.

The Einstein Theory of Relativity

Einstein presented his basic (or “Special”) Relativity theory in 1905 to explain a paradox associated with measuring the speed of light. He concluded that the speed of light must be the same for all observers, regardless of their velocities. For this to be true, the instruments for measuring distance and time must appear to be different for observers travelling at different velocities. Yet, these apparent effects are not illusions; they are real.  

From this concept, Einstein derived some profound conclusions, which include the prediction that energy can be converted into matter, and matter into energy, in accordance with the famous Einstein formula (E = Mc²).  That prediction eventually led to the awesome power of the atomic nuclear bomb.

Einstein’s Special Relativity theory was based on the principle that the measured speed of light is exactly constant, regardless of the velocity of the observer. Then Einstein found that this does not hold when the velocity of the observer changes, i.e., when acceleration occurs. He concluded that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable, and so the speed of light must also vary with gravity. Hence Einstein needed to generalize his Relativity theory to include the effects of gravity and acceleration. 

The measurements made by two observers can be regarded as measurements made relative to coordinates at the locations of the observers. Einstein recognized that the essential result achieved by his Special 

Relativity theory was to translate measurement data in a consistent manner from one set of coordinates to another. To generalize his Relativity theory, Einstein needed to achieve this same result when the two sets of coordinates operate under different accelerations and gravitational fields, as well as under different velocities. Einstein specified this requirement by his Principle of Covariance, which states that the laws of physics should be formulated in such a manner that they are “good” in all coordinate systems.

Einstein discovered that his Covariance principle could be satisfied by a mathematical theory published in 1901 by the Italian mathematician, Gregorio Ricci, with the help of his student, Tullio Levi-Civita. This theory was called “The Absolute Differential Calculus”. It was based on a mathematical principle for specifying curved space that was presented by the German mathematician Bernhard Riemann in 1852. The Riemann-Ricci mathematical theory of curved space provides complicated rules for translating data in a consistent manner from one coordinate system to another.

To incorporate relativity principles into the abstract Riemann-Ricci mathematical theory, Einstein concluded that gravity and acceleration must produce the curvature of space for this mathematical theory. Einstein achieved this by developing his “Gravitational Field Equation”, which specifies the effect of gravity and acceleration on the curvature of space. The elements of this equation are called “tensors”. These tensors must have precise mathematical characteristics, so that they transform into different coordinates according to the rigid rules of the Riemann-Ricci mathematical theory. Tensors that satisfy this requirement are called true tensors.

Einstein was able to derive a true tensor that specifies the effect of matter and energy on the curvature of space. He called this true tensor his “energy-momentum tensor”. He also tried to develop a true tensor to specify the energy of the gravitational field, but he could only achieve a “pseudo-tensor”, which could not be used in his gravitational field equation.   

The resultant gravitational field equation developed by Einstein has had remarkable success in predicting the tiny relativistic effects due to gravity that occur within our solar system. However, the Einstein equation cannot yield meaningful predictions of the much larger relativistic effects associated with cosmology, because the Einstein gravitational field equation lacks a true tensor to characterize the gravitational field. The science-fiction concepts derived by cosmologists from Einstein’s General theory of Relativity are the result of using an incomplete gravitational field equation. 

Referense

The Old Univese Website-2014

PEMBELOKAN CAHAYA TIDAK DISEBABKAN OLEH MEDAN GRAVITASI, TETAPI DISEBABKAN OLEH PEMBIASAN

Light deflection is not caused by gravity, but by refraction.

In astronomy, the deflection of light is something very common, and not caused by gravity field of a massive object, but it occurs due to  the light refraction.

Cahaya,  secara alami ada di sekitar kita,  baik di waktu siang hari maupun malam hari.  Cahaya tersebut dapat berasal dari sumber-sumber alam maupun buatan.  Ketika kita melihat suatu benda yang terletak jauh dari tempat kita berdiri,  kita berfikir bahwa apa yang kita lihat itu adalah penampakan sebenarnya.   Kita sering tidak menyadari,  bahwa apa yang kita lihat itu sesungguhnya bukan penampakan sebenarnya dari benda tersebut. 

Misalnya,  suatu saat kita berada di tepi pantai dan sedang mengagumi keindahan alam pada saat menjelang matahari terbenam.  Matahari terlihat bergerak turun perlahan-lahan,  dan suatu saat bagian tepi bawah matahari menyentuh tepi langit atau cakrawala.   Pemandangan yang sangat indah.  Namun kita tidak sadar ketika melihat pemandangan yang indah itu, bahwa matahari yang sebenarnya sudah turun di bawah cakrawala.  Jadi apa yang kita lihat itu bukan matahari sebenarnya,  melainkan matahari semu, atau matahari pada kondisi posisi semunya ( Apparent Position ).  Bahkan, cakrawala atau tepi langit yang kita lihat itupun bukan tepi langit sebenarnya,  melainkan tepi langit maya.

Penyebab dari fenomena tersebut adalah karena terjadinya suatu lengkungan sinar yang sampai ke mata kita.  Lengkungan sinar yang menyebabkan penampakan matahari semu disebut lengkungan sinar astronomis ( astronomical refraction ),  sedangkan yang menyebabkan penampakan tepi langit maya disebut lengkungan sinar bumiawi ( terrestrial refraction ).  Lengkungan sinar bumiawi ini pula yang menyebabkan terjadinya fenomena fatamorgana ( mirages ).  Dan fatamorgana bukanlah ilusi optik melainkan fenomena fisika yang nyata.

Demikian juga ketika pada malam hari yang cerah kita melihat ke langit,  dan mengagumi bintang-bintang yang bertaburan di angkasa.  Semua benda-benda angkasa itu bukan dalam kondisi sebenarnya,  melainkan adalah pada kondisi posisi semunya,  dan penyebabnya adalah astronomical refraction.

Dari penjelasan di atas timbul pertanyaan,  apakah kita tidak pernah bisa melihat dengan mata telanjang,  sebuah bintang di langit dalam kondisi posisi sejatinya ?  Peluang itu ada, walaupun terbatas,  dan akan ditemui dalam pembahasan berikut ini.

Lengkungan sinar terjadi karena cahaya suatu obyek  yang sampai ke mata kita / pengamat, tidaklah dipancarkan berupa garis lurus,  melainkan telah disimpangkan oleh media sepanjang lintasannya,  termasuk disimpangkan oleh atmosfer bumi. Lengkungan sinar adalah suatu sudut yang terjadi antara arah posisi semu dan arah dari posisi sejati dari obyek tersebut.

Cahaya bintang-bintang di langit yang sampai ke bumi menempuh jarak yang sangat jauh,  dan telah melalui bermacam-macam media yang masing-masing berbeda kerapatannya.   Para ilmuwan klasik seperti Aristotle, Rene Desscartes, Sir Isaac Newton dan lain-lainnya percaya,  bahwa cahaya bintang-bintang yang sampai ke bumi merambat melalui media yang dinamakan luminiferous aether. 

Namun berbagai percobaan telah dilakukan,  antara lain percobaan yang dilakukan oleh ilmuwan Amerika Michelson and Morleyi pada abad-19,  dan semua percobaan-percobaan itu tidak berhasil mendeteksi adanya luminiferous aether,  sehingga aether dianggap tidak ada.  Ada kemungkinan luminiferous aether itu ada tapi tidak bisa dibuktikan.

Yang jelas,  cahaya benda-benda angkasa yang sampai ke bumi telah melalui lapisan-lapisan atmosfer bumi,  yang diketahui memiliki kerapatan udara yang berbeda.   Di dekat permukaan bumi kerapatan udara lebih pekat dibandingkan dengan kerapatan lapisan udara di atasnya.  Dan kerapatan semakin renggang dengan bertambahmya ketinggian

Hukum Snellius (Snell's law ) tentang refraksi cahaya menyatakan, bahwa jika suatu berkas cahaya melintas dari media yang satu ke media lainnya yang berbeda kerapatan ( density ),  maka berkas cahaya itu akan dibiaskan. Besarnya sudut bias tergantung dari kerapatan medianya.  Sebagai contoh,  suatu berkas cahaya yang dilewatkan ke air,  maka berkas cahaya itu akan dibiaskan mendekati normal.  Pada gambar di bawah digambarkan  garis normal adalah N – N’.   Cahaya melintas dari A ke B,  dan lintasan cahaya membentuk sudut ABN.  Sudut ABN disebut sudut datang ( angle of incidence ).

 

Di dalam air, arah lintasan cahaya dibiaskan mendekati garis normal, yaitu arah BC,  dan membentuk sudut CBN’. Sudut CBN’ disebut sudut bias ( angle of refraction ).  Dan sinus sudut datang dan sinus sudut bias mempunyai perbandingan yang tetap.  Perbandingan tersebut disebut indek bias ( index of refraction ). 

Snell's law states that the ratio of the sines of the angles of incidence and refraction is equivalent to the ratio of phase velocities  the two media, or equivalent to the reciprocal of the ratio of the indices of refraction

Berkas cahaya tidak dibiaskan jika lintasannya searah dengan normal.  Hal ini menjawab pertanyaan di atas tadi,   suatu peluang dan satu-satunya kesempatan untuk melihat bintang di posisi sejatinya,  yaitu ketika bintang tersebut berada tepat lurus di atas kepala kita selaku penilik,  atau tepat di titik Zenith. 

Pada gambar di atas ,  perbedaan kerapatan udara dengan kerapatan air cukup besar atau mendadak,  oleh sebab itu lintasan cahaya di udara dan di dalam air terlihat seperti garis yang patah.  Berbeda dengan lintasan cahaya di atmosfer bumi.  Kerapatan udara lapisan-lapisan atmosfer bumi berubah secara gradual dan teratur,  hal ini yang menyebabkan pembiasan cahaya berbentuk suatu lengkungan. Dan akibat dari lengkungan itu maka posisi semu bintang akan selalu tampak lebih tinggi dari posisi sebenarnya.

Lengkungan sinar atau pembelokan cahaya juga dikenal dalam teorinya Einstein, yaitu suatu pembelokan cahaya ketika melewati medan gravitasi benda massif.   Menurut teori ini,  ketika cahaya sebuah bintang melintas di dalam medan gravitasi matahari, maka cahaya bintang itu akan dibelokkan ke dalam,  sehingga  akan  terjadi juga adanya posisi semu dan posisi sejati bintang.  

If Einstein's theory of relativity was correct, then the light from stars that passed closest to the sun would show the greatest degree of "bending."    

Dan bintang-bintang yang lintasan cahayanya jauh dari matahari,  cahayanya tidak dibelokkan.  Bintang-bintang yang cahayanya tidak dibelokkan berarti tidak ada perbedaan antara posisi semu dan posisi sejati bintang.  Jika konsisten dengan teori ini,  maka berarti  semua bintang-bintang yang tampak pada malam hari adalah pada kondisi penampakan posisi sejatinya,  karena bintang-bintang itu tidak melewati medan gravitasi.  Hal ini tentunya tidak benar dipandang dari keilmiahan astronomi. 

Dalam astronomi,  adanya posisi semu dan posisi sejati bintang disebabkan oleh lengkungan sinar,  baik astronomical refraction maupun terrestrial refraction,  dan bukan disebabkan karena pengaruh medan gravitasi.  Dan akibat dari adanya lengkungan sinar tersebut,  maka posisi semu bintang selalu tampak lebih tinggi dari posisi sebenarnya,  berbeda dengan penggambaran pembelokan cahaya pada referensi yang disebut di atas.

What causes a mirage?

Edwin Meyer, a physics professor at Baldwin-Wallace College, explains.

To understand how a mirage forms, one must first understand how light travels through air. If the air is all the same temperature--cold or hot--light travels through it in a straight line. If a steady temperature gradient exists, however, light will follow a curved path toward the cooler air. The standard freshman physics explanation for this phenomenon is that cold air has a higher index of refraction than warm air does. As a result, photons (particles of light) travel through hot air faster than they can through cold air because the hot air is less dense. The quantum electrodynamics explanation is that photons always take the path of minimum time when traveling from one point to another. In order to get from one point to another in a minimum time, photons will take "shortcuts" even though the length of the path is curved and it covers a longer distance than the direct route.

Mirages are a direct result of photons taking the path of minimum time in vertical temperature gradients. Ideal conditions for a mirage are still air on a hot, sunny day over a flat surface that will absorb the sun's energy and become quite hot. When these conditions exist, the air closest to the surface is hottest and least dense and the air density gradually increases with height. Incoming photons take a curved path from the sky to the viewer's eye. The illusion comes from the fact that quantum electrodynamics is not intuitive and the human brain assumes that light travels in a straight line. A viewer looking at, say, the road ahead on a hot, still, day will see the sky because photons from the sky are taking the curved path that minimizes the time taken. The brain interprets this as water on the road because water would reflect light from the sky in much the same way that a vertical temperature gradient does.

A simple experiment can demonstrate the manner in which a light beam bends in a vertical density gradient. Fill a long glass tank with water, dissolve sugar in the water and shine a laser beam in one end. The vertical gradient produced by the sugar concentration will cause the beam to bend. If the tank is long enough and a mirror is placed on the bottom, the beam will "bounce" along the bottom of the tank.

( www.scientificamerican.com )




Albert Einstein Has Failed In Three Classical Tests