The Equivalence Principle, Its Flaws and Their Consequences

Clive Tickner BSC, BA. [email protected]

THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE, ITS FLAWS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES.

Abstract

Einstein maintained that gravity, being the ‘force’ that we ex peri ence holding us down on planet E arth, is equivalent to the ‘pseudo force’ provided by acceleration in a non - gravitational field.

By examining the impact of the difference between red and blue - shift frequencies transmitted in both travelling and Earthb ound spacecraft I reveal crucial flaws in this conviction.

In providing several flawed examples, which claim to verify this established principle, I discuss their errors and examine the consequent theories concerning light, time, mass and space that have a risen under the 'Equivalence' umbrella.

In this illustrated essay I also suggest alternative experiments and analytical conclusions in the hope that, in a subject not impervious to criticism, there might be further enlightening debate.

Keywords

The strong equivalence principle, the weak equivalence principle, gravitational red - shift, cosmological red - shift, blue - shift, Pound - Rebka, Minkowski, Time Dilation, Sagnac Effect, Atmospheric Refraction, Astronomical Refraction, Terrestrial Refraction, Turbulence. Einstein, Einstein's elevator.

Presentation Throughout this essay I will be inserting established axioms against which many of my points may be judged .

1 I am taking an axiom as being a well documented and recognized piece of evidence that is fully accepte d by standard physics as an incontrovertible fact .

CONTENTS Abstract Keywords Presentation

PART 1 THE PRINCIPLE of EQUIVALENCE EXAMPLE showing the initial weakness of the Principle of Equivalence PART 2 EINSEIN / MINKOWSKI's ELEVATOR; 1. 1) http://ww w.dummies.com/how - to/content/einsteins - general - relativity - theory 2) from abyss.uoregon.edu/. 3) www.tat.physic.uni - tuebingden.de; 4) www.muonray.blogspot.com. 5) www.newtonphysics.on.ca. 6) www.pitt.edu also uses a similar example to 'prove' the Equiva lence Principle. 7) http://slideplayer.com/slide/4846233/ 8) uk.pinterest.com/kamcheukwai/images/ 9) www.abyss.uoregon.edu and others PART 3 LIGHT's FREQUENCY RED SHIFT, BLUE SHIFT and the GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION of LIGHT GRAVITATIONAL RED - SHIFT COSMOLOGI CAL RED - SHIFT

2 THE POUND - REBKA EXPERIMENT PART 4 THE CONCEPT OF SPACETIME

PART 5 EINSTEIN / MINKOWSKI's ELEVATOR; 2 THE REPRESENTATION OF SPACETIME

PART 6 THE CONFLICTING ISSUES OF TIME DILATION; 1, the THEORIES 1) GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION CONFUSING CO NCLUSIONS SIDEREAL TIME 2) RELATIVISTIC TIME DILATION EINSTEIN's TRAIN and PYTHAGORAS THE PULSE ALTERNATIVE PENROSE'S ANDROMEDA ARMADA LIGHTNING STRIKES a TRAIN DIVERGENT CLOCKS CONFUSING CONCLUSIONS CURVED and FLAT SPACE PART 7 THE CONFLICTING ISSUES OF TIME DILATION; the EXPERIMENTS 1) Gravity Probe A 2) Hafele and Keating 3) The National Physical Laboratory 4) University of Maryland 5) Accelerating Muons CONFUSING CONCLUSIONS atomic clocks.

3 PART 8 THE ALTERNATIVES The Sagnac Effect The principle. GPS an d the Sagnac Effect Atmospheric refraction Astronomical refraction Terrestrial refraction Turbulence PART 9 THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE, SPACETIME and LIGHT the physics and conflicts PA RT 10 SUMMARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

4 PART 1

THE PRINCIPLE of EQUIVALENCE

Einstein maintained that gravity, being the ‘force’ that we experience holding us down on planet earth, is equivalent to the ‘pseudo force’ provided by acceleration in a non - g ravitational field.

Originally Einstein posited his Weak Equivalence Principle: that being that Gravitationa l and inertial masses are equal, subsequently elaborating this into the Strong Equivalence Principle: that being; There is no observable distinction between the local effects of gravity and acceleration.

Below I discuss the flaws in the simplicity of these statements.

For example, the above claims would identify the experience of a space ship ’s crew, whilst accelerating under the rocket’s own propulsi on , and being free from other gravitational forces , as being equivalent to the ‘pull’ of the Earth's gravity.

The Equivalence Principle equates gravitational and inertial mass, claiming that there is no difference between a uniform, static, gravitational f ield and the ‘G’ forces associated with an inertial (accelerating) object, and this theory became a fundamental contribution to General Relativity

If this is even close to being the case then it would seem necessary, however, to be more accurate and to com pare Earth’s gravity with, specifically an acceleration of 1g only.

The directional vector of gravity’s ‘acceleration’ is upwards from the planet’s centre. The space ship ' s vector of acceleration is always against the mass ejected by its engines, but, clea rly we need to equate those forces as being 1g in both cases.

When an object falls towards Earth it falls at an accelerating velocity of 9 .8 meters per second, per second, therefore we accept that this is the speed we attribute to a ‘1g’ force. Below, in o rder to explore the correctness of Einstein's claim I attribute this same figure to an accelerating space craft.

EXAMPLE showing the initial weakness of the Principle of Equivalence.

The g force in a rocket is the thrust per unit mass. To gain 1g horizont ally requires travelling at 9.8m/s ² In other words, an acceleration of 1g is accepted as being a continuing increase in an object’s velocity of approximately 22mph per second.

5 Let us consider a rocket which is 500 feet long, nose to tail. Our rocket is in a geostationary position, at a height of 22,236 miles above the equator, travelling in a circular orbit, in the same direction as the Earth, and is therefore appearing motionless. A single pulse of light is created by a transmitter in the tail, every se cond, to be received by a recorder in the nose. Light travels at 1 nanosecond per foot, so the pulse must take 500 nanoseconds to travel from tail to nose. The rocket then begins an immediate acceleration of 1g, and then continues to increase its speed by approximately 22 mph every second, consequently maintaining the 1g pseudo force. Now, an object in ‘free fall’ inside the rocket would behave as it would on Earth, it would ‘fall’ in the opposite direction to that of the rocket’s travel. But this is not s ufficient to prove the exact correlation between a 1g acceleration and the 1g force on Earth. Considering our rocket, then, after one second, at 1g, it will be travelling at 22.369 mph (32.807 feet per second) This means that the pulse sent at the moment the rocket began immediately to accelerate, now has, in that first second of the rocket’s travel, to traverse an extra 32.807 feet to reach the recorder. At 1 nanosecond per foot of travel, the new distance for the pulse’s journey has to be the initial 500 feet length of rocket, plus the 32.807’ additional distance the recorder has inevitably moved forward, away from the source; this total now being 532.807 feet, and the time taken to cross this new distance, therefore, is 532.807 nanoseconds. The light pul se has no mass, it is unaffected by the acceleration of the craft, and independent from the speed of the craft. Once emitted the pulse is completely autonomous, free of the vehicle and of the medium in which it is travelling. There is no friction that woul d affect its path and the pulse cannot be ‘dragged’ along just because it is travelling in a craft which itself is in forward motion. After 2 seconds the rocket will be accelerating through 44.738 mph (65.615 fps). At this specific moment a second light pu lse is emitted at the tail source. Whilst this pulse is travelling towards the recorder, the craft is still accelerating forward, taking the nose recorder further from the actual point in space where it was when the pulse was transmitted. Again the pulse h as to traverse a longer distance, that being the initial 500 feet plus the 65.615 feet that the craft has travelled during that next second. The time for the second pulse to travel from source to recorder is therefore 565.615 nanoseconds. This follows that ; After 3 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 67.108 mph (98.425 fps) increasing the pulse’s distance to travel from tail to nose to 598.425 feet, timed at 598.425 nanoseconds.

6 After 4 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 87.240 mph (127.952 fps) increasing the pulse’s distance to travel from tail to nose to 627.952 feet, timed at 627.952 nanoseconds. Avoidable information ; After 5 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 109.609 mph (160.759 fps) increasing the pulse’s distance to travel from tail to nose to 660.759 feet, timed at 660.759 nanoseconds. After 6 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 131.97 mph (195.556 fps) increasing the pulse’s distance to travel from tail to nose to 695.556 feet, timed at 695.556 nanoseconds. After 7 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 154.34 mph (226.365 fps) increasing the pulse’s distance to travel from tail to nose to 726.365 feet, timed at 726.365 nanoseconds. After 20 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 438 mph (642.40 fps) increasing the pulse’s distance to travel from tail to nose to 1,142.40 feet, timed at 1,142.40 nanoseconds.

After 30 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 657 mph (963.60 fps) increasing the pulse’s distance to travel from tail to nose to 1,463.60 feet, timed at 1,463.60 nan oseconds. After 60 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 1,320 mph (1,936 fps) increasing the pulse’s distance to travel from tail to nose to 2,436 feet, timed at 2,436 nanoseconds. After 180 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 3,960 mph (5,808 fp s) increasing the pulse’s distance to travel from tail to nose to 6,308 feet, timed at 6,308 nanoseconds. After 360 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 7,920 mph (11,616 fps) increasing the pulse’s distance to travel from tail to nose to 12,116 feet, timed at 12,116 nanoseconds.

It is accepted that this continuing acceleration requires the rocket’s engines to consume more fuel, as an object with an escalating speed gains (kinetic) mass, which in turn requires the engines to provide more thrust. Since we are assuming an acceleration of 1g throughout, the size and mass does not enter into the velocity calculation, only that it will be of consequence in terms of the energy required to accelerate the craft . Also, as it happens, the Equivalence Principle a lso avoids considering that the space craft requires a continuous and inexhaustible fuel source, crucially ignoring the hugely significant difference that gravity appears to be free and everlasting

However, if we too ignore the propulsion problem at the mo ment, after 6 months, at a continuing 1g acceleration, the rocket will have achieved a speed of 346,896,000

7 miles per hour; this being 508,780,800 feet per second. From the maths above we can see that the distance between the emitting source and the receiv ing recorder will be, at this moment, 508,781,300 feet, taking the pulse 508,781,300 nanoseconds (about half a second) to cover the source to recorder distance.

Diagram 1; showing the red - shifted frequencies which occur when a pulse is emitted at the ta il and recorded at the nose in a craft accelerating at 1g. Each one second marker shows where the nose is receiving the pulse and the tail is emitting the next pulse, at that particular moment.

Clearly, i t will never be possible for this craft to reach th e speed of light as the engines would need to expend an infinite amount of energy to achieve this.

However, to take this to its logical, but impossible, conclusion, after one year, the rocket will be exceeding the speed of light (travelling at twice the 6 month figure above) and any emitted light pulse could never reach its target. This is not because I am ignoring the fact that a light beam’s speed is independent of its source, it’s just that, in this example the target is actually moving away completely f rom the approaching light pulse! The purpose of this over - elaboration is to demonstrate that in a constantly accelerating craft, a pulse of light takes an increasing time to travel from source to recorder; the frequency of the pulse arriving at the recorde r will be constantly diminishing. Now let’s examine a similar scenario, but with the source and recorder’s locations reversed. Again our ‘motionless’ rocket begins an immediate acceleration of 1g, and again continues to increase its speed by approximately 22 mph every second, maintaining the 1g pseudo force. After one second, at 1g, the rocket will be travelling at 32.807 feet per second.

8 This time this means that the pulse sent from the nose of the craft, at the moment the rocket began immediately to accel erate, now has, in that first second of the rocket’s travel, to traverse a distance that has contracted by 32.807 feet to reach the recorder at the tail. At 1 nanosecond per foot of travel, the new distance for the pulse’s journey has to be the initial 50 0 feet length of rocket, less the 32.807’ distance the recorder has inevitably moved towards the source; this total now being 467.193 feet, and the time taken to cross this new distance, therefore, is 467.193 nanoseconds. After 2 seconds the rocket will be accelerating through 65.615 fps. At this specific moment a second light pulse is emitted at the nose source. Whilst this pulse is travelling towards the recorder, the craft is still accelerating forward, bringing the tail recorder closer to the actual poi nt in space where the pulse was transmitted. The pulse has to traverse a shorter distance now, that being the initial 500 feet less the 65.615 feet that the craft has travelled during that second. The time for the second pulse to travel from nose source to tail recorder is therefore 434.385 nanoseconds. Again this follows that ; (avoidable information) After 3 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 98.425 fps, thus decreasing the pulse’s distance to travel from nose to tail by 401.575 feet, timed at 401.57 5 nanoseconds. After 4 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 127.952 fps, thus decreasing the pulse’s distance to travel from nose to tail by 372.048 feet, timed at 372.048 nanoseconds. After 5 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 160.759 fps, thus decreasing the pulse’s distance to travel from nose to tail by 339.241 feet, timed at 339.241 nanoseconds. However, after 15.1 seconds the rocket will be travelling at 500 fps, thus the effective distance from nose source to tail recorder is reduced to ze ro when the pulse is set to travel at the same speed as its approaching target.

Again, the purpose of this second over - elaboration is to demonstrate that in a constantly accelerating craft a reversed pulse of light has a decreasing distance to cross, from nose to tail, thus the frequency of the pulse arriving at the recorder will be increasing until there is no apparent space remaining, at all, in which it may travel. Once more I am not linking the speed of light to the speed of the craft, but simply apply ing a light beam to an ever decreasing environment.

Diagram 2; Showing the increasing frequencies which occur when a pulse is emitted at the nose and recorded at the tail of a craft accelerating at 1g. Each 'one second' marker shows where the tail is rec eiving the pulse and the nose is emitting the next pulse at that particular moment. As becomes obvious, there will be a time when emission and reception are at the same moment.

These results for the enormous red and blue - shift changes, in our accelerati ng rocket, over such a short period of time, by far exceed the predictions of the Pound - Rebka experiment, which attempts to show red and blue - shift changes on Earth; of which, more later.

Next we look at this same craft, but now it is no longer in space b ut stands upright on Earth, subject only to gravity.

Even although the craft is exposed to the 1g force of gravity a pulse of light, whether from nose to tail, or tail to nose will never alter its journey time frequency. The period taken for the pulse of light to make that interior journey in the 500 foot tall craft will always be 500 nanoseconds.

Diagram 3; Contrary to the Equivalence Principle there is no measurable red or blue - shift occurring within the rocket under gravity.

How then can Einstein fi nd a similarity of physical experience between the craft static on Earth and the conditions experienced in space of the rocket undergoing a 1g acceleration, apart from 'dropped items' falling in a similar way? From the above I maintain that not all factor s are exactly comparable between an acceleration of 1g and Earth's gravity.

Next I wish to examine the many interpretations of Einstein's claim that the two are equivalent, showing how careless and obtuse is the reasoning to explain this principles of eq uivalence.

PART 2 EINSEIN / MINKOWSKI's ELEVATOR 1. This Equivalence assumption discussed now is of being unable to distinguish an acceleration of an elevator (lift), a t some point in space where no gravitational fields act, from the effect of a stationa ry elevator sitting in a planetary gravitational field

Diagram 4; comparing a rising lift (elevator) free from a gravitational field with a lift on the surface of the Earth.

This reflects exact ly the issues dealt with in the P art 1 of this thesis. The re must be a difference in the frequency of any emitted light between these two items. Unfortunately, this proposition is not easily transformed into a practical experimental test, only the mathematics from Part 1 can indicate a lack of equivalence here . I describe, later in this thesis, how n obody has yet performed an experiment to test directly the principle of equivalence, even if this is the basis of modern physics. It is regrettable that the principle of equivalence has been accepted as a dogma , becau se this has influenced the notion of Red - Shift and Blue - Shift and it presents the idea that gravity can bend light. We do now know that light can be deflected around a huge mass, as when stars actually hidden behind the sun, can be seen, as if in a differe nt and unexpected position. This is attributed to the light from that distant star being curved around the sun (for example) by the sun's mass, as it travels towards us, giving us a false impression of that star's position in the solar system. I deal with an alternative (non mass) explanation later in this essay. However, what occurs on a global scale does not necessarily explain events on a local level.

12 I now investigate assertions from several scientifically presented essays which, in various spurious wa ys, employ the Principle of Equivalence in order to explain how gravity itself apparently 'bend s ' light .

1) http://www.dummies.com/how - to/content/einsteins - general - relativity - theory The first example includes claims that are prevalent through out the argu ments that follow. Basic errors are magnified, forming poorly reasoned results from initially questionable contention. This instance compares an accelerating craft with a similar vehicle stationary on Earth, subject to gravity. Quotes in blue. "If a group of scientists, performing scientific tasks, were in an accelerating spaceship they would get exactly the same results as if sitting still on a planet whose gravity provided that same acceleration".

Diagram 5; The Equivalence Principle of comparison

13 The u pper illustration in Diagram 5 is of a scientist dropping a ball whilst his colleague maintains a level liquid in a flask. One is accelerating at 1g, the other rests on Earth. Their experiences are shown to equate. From the lower diagram we get; " if a beam of light entered an accelerating spaceship, then the beam would appear to curve slightly, as in the left picture of the above figure. The beam is trying to go straight, but the ship is accelerating, so the path, as viewed inside the ship , would be a curve " ( AXIOM: the laws of physics are not a matter of opinion .) Again by a cripplingly inaccurate representation of the legitimate conditions, yet another presumption is accomplished! " By the principle of equivalence, this meant that gravity should also bend light, as shown in the right picture of the figure above. When Einstein first realized this in 1907, he had no way to calculate the effect, other than to predict that it would probably be very small. Ultimately, though, this exact effect would be the one u sed to give general relativity its strongest support " . In the top image the equivalence principle works within narrow constraints. Below, the 'bending of light' is a non scientific and erroneous interpretation of the described events. The application of th e Equivalence Principle provides an impossible interpretation of the suggested events. 2) from abyss.uoregon.edu/. In diagram 6 i t is the inaccurate rendering of the picture that allows for the misconception that a light beam is actually being bent .

Dia gram 6 ; an erroneous interpretation of a Photon ' s projected line of travel.

14 A photon is emitted on one side of a travelling spaceship. The path of the photon , as admitted by the outside observer travels in a straight line, but the claim here is that the as tronaut would see (experience) the light apparently follow a curved path.

AXIOM : The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. By failing to acknowledge that the craft has moved upward by the right hand image above, our astronaut (c learly an unreliable witness) is allowed to provide his erroneous inte rpretation of the event as 'fact'; the light has bent! If the drawing were to be as my diagram 7 , then it is clear that both the outside observer and the inside astronaut would note that the fast travelling Photon would obey the convention of straight - line travel. By applying the E q uivalence Principle to diagram 5 the non - axiomatic conclusion is drawn , by its author , maintaining that light would also fall , in an exactly similar way, in a spaceship parked upright in our own gravitational field on earth. Let us imagine two things, 1) T he astronaut does know he is accelerating. He sees the photon emitted as in diagram 6 . The photon hits the far wall at a level lower than the emitter. He is a well educated man and not for a minute does he consider that this photon beam has bent; he understands that this phenomenon is a factor of his travel (a delusion) and not an abrogation of the laws of physics. The floor has risen to meet the straight track of the beam! So, if a dotted - line curve has to be drawn at all it should not be of the light, but of the floor of the craft! (As below in green)

Diagram 7 showing the equal experiences of two observers

2). In this ship, now parked on Earth (right ima ge , diagram 7 ) there are two holes, one opposite another. Let us shine a light from the outside of the craft through one hole. I am sure we will all agree that the beam will traverse the craft and exit through the opposite hole. The beam does not fall; doe s not miss the opposite hole; does not hit the wall below that hole. Now lets try and shine a light through that same space vehicle accelerating at 1g. It is not beyond the whit of man to realise that this particular beam would not exit through the opposit e hole. The equi valence principle does not work here; it is not appropriate, but allows a serious misinterpretation of the possibility of events. 3) www.tat.physic.uni - tuebingden.de; Here we are given a different set of circumstances , but which exhibit a similar ly confused result. My contention from above , regarding a light passing through parallel holes, is disputed once more. Quotes in blue. "An immediate consequence of the equivalence principle is that gravity bends light. To visualize why this is true imagine a photon crossing a falling elevator. As the photon crosses the elevator, the floor is apparently accelerated upward and the photon appears to fall downward. The same must be true in a gravitational field by the equivalence principle". (why must it ?) “A lift is stationary, a pulse of light is shone through a hole in the lift’s left side. Immediately the lift is in free fall. There is a hole immediately opposite in the right wall".

Diagram 8; T he ridiculous assumption that light will fall with the lift.

16 “exploiting the equivalence principle, and as both the lift and the inner observer are in free fall the beam will exit the opposite hole having travelled in a straight line”. “ Unknown to the inner observer the lift has started to fall as the light enters the lift ”.

Ah! Now we are told the lift is in free - fall. But how does the light beam know this? The light cannot be dragged downwards by the atmosphere in the lift, there i s no friction which can deflect the light beam's path. Light is always indepe ndent o f other frame s of reference. That part that I have underlined actually tells us that the guest in the lift should know he was now in movement as the light pulse would not travel down with him as implied in their diagram 9 below!

Diagram 9; Another erroneous suggestion as to the falling path of the light beam.

As soon as that light beam enters the lift , it is a 'free agent' unaffected by its source or surroundings. In which case the right hand 'hole' which was, prior to the lift dropping, opposite t he projector source, will no longer be in that beam's course or direction, it will be below it as in my corrected diagram 10.

Diagram 10 ; the true direction of the light beam.

17 This claim is the same as was made with the rockets, from diagram 6 , but in re verse. How crazy to maintain, therefore, that the light beam would still pass through the right hand hole if the lift has moved during the passage of the light , across the lift?

But t he contention continues;

“Initially both observers are at rest relative t o each other at the start of the experiment. Also, both observers agree that the light pulse enters through one hole, and leaves through the other”.

I again underline the unexplained jump in thought. Their result is not axiomatic! Their presumption here i s unfounded, unscientific, and audacious! Neither observer would see the light exit the right hand ho le. What a crass conclusion! Nevertheless the ridiculous assertions continue;

“During the lights travel time across the interior of the lift, it will have moved downward - (nonsense) and so will the second hole, through which the light pulse later makes its exit”. (really, what rubbish; clearly concluded from the impossible circumstance illustrated in their unfeasible drawing.)

This is followed by three mor e unverified pronouncements; a ) "Therefore, from the point of view of the outside observer, the light pulse cannot travel along a straight line. It has travelled in a straight line across the lift but the lift has fallen” and even worse; b ) “Our argument d oes not require the actual, physical presence of the cabin. Since the cabin and the light never actually interact, our argument must hold even in the absence of a falling cabin”. c ) "Applying the equivalence principle, the conclusion is that quite generall y, we must conclude that light is deflected by gravitation."

The equivalence principle is applied to prove something that is not a self - evident development from the first situation; it certainly does not work here; it leads scientific thought astray!

4 ) ww w.muonray.blogspot.com.

This is the next example of muddled thinking. The bending of light from diagram 6 is exploited and, by the use of the equivalence principle, compared to light being influenced by the mass of the sun. Quotes in blue.

Diagram 11 ; another erroneous comparison.

"In the diagram, we have an accelerating craft, with a window that allows photons, travelling at the speed of light [c] to enter. If a photon entered at time [t0], it must take a finite time for the photon to travel across the width of the spaceship [x]. (true) This time [t] equals [x/c] and because of the upward acceleration of the spaceship, the path of the photon is curved downwards " . (No, the path of the Photon's travel remains (in this case) horizontal, the ship may move ' upward' in space, but, once again, there is no reason for the movement of the craft to influence the travel direction of the Photon. (Ag ain, light is independent of the reference frame)

" The diagram on the right alludes to an equivalent configuration where the photons pass a large gravitational mass, e.g. the Sun".

So, first we have that acceleration bends light. (left image) Next, via the equivalence principle we have mass bending light. (right image).

The two events are in no way connected! One (wrong an yway!) does not imply the other, whether or not mass deflects the path of light!

We do know that the straight line of a light beam appears to be deflected around the sun , but to apply that knowledge, backwards, to the left hand drawing above is false physi cs. By this application of the equivalence principle, once again, the results it provides are muddled, confusing and just plain wrong.

19 5) www.newtonphysics.on.ca.

In this further example the authors consider a horizontal parallel beam of light projected on / through ( an other) elevator moving upwards at a constant velocity with respect to the source. I'm sure we recognise where this is going.

Diagram 1 2; An erroneous conclusion from a partially correct diagram.

The experiment takes place away from any gravitational field. The authors acknowledge that momentum must be conserved, the beam of light must move in a straight line. (as drawn in blue ) Let's be thankful for that!

However, alt hough it is obvious that, for an interior observer , the beam will not appear to continue to move along its horizontal path inside the elevator, the authors choose to plot, the apparent ly bent track of photons noticed by this interior witness, at differing intervals (the blue dotted lines). This leads them to consider this 'b ending' misinterpretation as being usefully measurable!

AXIOM: the laws of physics are not a matter of opinion .

The interior observer's 'interpretation' of events is irrelevant.

The relative location of the photons, with respect to the elevator , moving at a constant velocity, is shown by the darker blue dots. However, for an external

20 observer, as well as for an interior observer, the beam of particles obviously always travels horizontally, no matter how the interior observer considers the situation.

Th e article from which this was taken asserts that the relative transverse velocity between the source and the elevator is measurable, as if the interior observer's view of the event had any scientific relevance at all.

6) www.pitt.edu also uses a similar e xample to 'prove' the Equivalence Principle.

Diagram 13 ; a further misinterpretation of events by a travelling observer.

Not a lift, but a box! Here again we are given an un - accelerated, external observer (unseen) who accepts that light propagates in a straight line. The authors, as above, accept this and draw in the light's journey as a straight blue line. For the travelling observer (also unseen) accelerating within the box, however, again by a misinterpretation of the circumstances, the light pulse w ill 'appear' to fall, its path apparently being bent downward . (The lower box represents the internal observer's view of this fallacy) But now this bending is attributed to the 'gravitational' force of his acceleration. As this traveller fail s to acknowle dge that his box is accelerati ng, his opinion of events is worthless. His interpretation of what he 'sees' should, if he had any scientific reasoning at all, include an understanding that it is not the light which is bending (it is, inevitably, still propa gating in a straight line ) but it is the container that is accelerating away from the direction of the pulse.

Next I investigate the implications of the explanation given in ;

7) http://slideplayer.com/slide/4846233/

This site maintains the following; Quotes in blue; "Freefall and weightlessness are equal " . " Imagine that you are far from any source of gravity, thus weightless; if you shine a light or throw a ball it (sic ; "they" ) will move in a straight line". (ok) "If you are in freefall you are also w eightless, so in a freefall reference frame light and ball will also travel in straight lines". Not so, the ball and the thrower will free - fall at the same rate. (thank you Galileo and the Tower of Pisa) But o nce the light beam from the flashlight is emit ted it will continue along that initial course and will not free - fall. Light is independent of that reference frame. "Now imagine two people in freefall on earth passing a ball. From their perspective they pass it in a straight line . From a stationary pers pective it follows a curved path, (yes) so will a flashlight beam (no) but the curvature of a light path is small because light is fast and Earths gravitational acceleration is small."

Diagram 14 , The reproduced author's hypothesis; as confusing as the t ext. This ignores the fact that free - fall requires gravity! What else could they be falling towards? In a gravity free environment they would all just 'float'.

22 I am going to digress quickly to enforce a point about a unique quality of light. Once a light b eam has been propagated its actual direction can only be diverted by small amounts by giant masses such as the sun. The direction of the beam can never be affected by its source once emitted. Its immediate environment cannot deflect it, alter it , or influe nce it in any way.

Diagram 15 ; a light source emitted from Spain H ere we have an image of a beam of light, directed into space, from Spain. The Earth spins, it travels through the Universe, and the Universe, with (almost) everything within it , is also on the move. However, if it were possible for a beam of light to leave a permanent track behind it, then that track would be the only immovable object in th e cosmos. Nothing will ever alter that line it has forged.

Diagram 16 ; the fixed track of a light beam in space.

23 The Earth revolves around the sun; the sun travels its own path, but this (imaginary) track of the light beam, created weeks ago from an initial beam from Spain, has left this permanent marker in space, it has created a singular, immovable, obdurate, entity (no matter how fanciful this sounds); its own permanent reference frame. The travelling Earth, weeks later, has left this 'light track' way behind, in space; they're never to be reunited. So, taking heed of this fact we can examine the c laims of diagram 14. in the certain knowledge that light from a torch wou ld continue to travel at 'c', along its initial trajectory, once emitted. The description quotes a ' freefall ' on Earth. Perhaps the action takes place in a very deep well. However, m y diagram 17, therefore, must be the correct interpretation of those events. The ball and the person must freefall together. But the pulse of light emitted from the torch (flashlight) at A has to continue on its initial straight path, disregarding the fall of the torch.

Diagram 1 7 ; comparing a per son and a ball's travel in free - fall with light propagated from a torch (flashlight) . The light's passage is recorded over the four frames above, lengthening from right to left as it travels away from its initi al source at ( A ) . In (A) we have the falling man ( with his ball) his torch emits a pulse of light. T he torch is flashed again at ( B ). b oth beams continue on their initial irrevocable paths, set at the moment of the beam's emission, all 'ignorant' of the physical events around them. The flash of light from the torch at C is similarly 'unaware' that the source of its creation has dropped away from the point of transmission.

24 Now, should the flashlight be propagating a continuous beam, would that beam curve as in the diagram 18 (left) below? No, the beam would still be parallel to (in this case) the horizontal, and would leave a vertical line of light on the opposite wall as in diagram18 (right). There is no influence present that could possible 'bend' that f ree - falling beam of light.

Diagram 18; A continuous beam from the free - falling flashlight.

8 ) uk.pinterest.com/kamcheukwai/images/ The application of the equivalence principle gets ever more bizarre. Here, we are to rely on the experiences of a crowd of observers on a child's roundabout. "A ray of light, passing a rotating wheel bearing a line of people, would appear to be straight to an outside non - rotating observer ". Let's be correct, t hat ray of light more than ' appears to be straight' it will be str aight. "As it passes, the people are carried away from it by the movement of the wheel . To those on the w heel the ray appears to bend" " This analogy shows that light bends in an accelerating system and therefore, by equivalence, also in a gravitational f ield". So what do we have here? The first sentence suggests that light ' appears ' to bend, whilst the second sentence makes the quantum leap into "light bends in an accelerating system" expanding yet further to "also in a gravitational field". The idea of the light ' appearing' to bend has transmogrified into - "it definitely bends.... and due to gravity". The perception of the travellers on the wheel is said to be of ' seeing ' a light beam bend. However, knowing that they are on a wheel, would they not realis e that th e light beam is maintaining its straight path, allowing their rota tion to be responsible for the appearance of the light beam bending?

25 AXIOM : The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion . AXIOM ; The laws of physi cs are not a matter of opinion. But if we carry this example further; after one full turn, the wheel, and the observers, would then be approaching the light beam, thus it would 'appear' to be 'bent' in the opposite direction. Do they now conclude that the light beam i s waving back and forth? AXIOM ; Looking at the world in different directions the laws of nature remain unchanged irrespective of the direction we are facing. If the wheel were to have been built on uneven ground, such that the wheel undulated whilst spinn ing, would their conclusion be that a light beam is wobbly?

Diagram 19 ; The appearance of a bending light beam to spinning observers. If we are to rely on the many disconcerting experiences of observers as giving us 'fact s ', we are walking in to a quagmire. I give you three further exaggerated alternatives as a 'reductio ad absurdum'; 1) The wheel above is in a totally dark room, except for a low wattage fluorescent tube alight in the ceiling. The wheel spins. The light in the ceiling appears t o revolve to the riders on the wheel. An observer sitting in the corner knows the truth, the light

26 is fixed to the ceiling, So who cares what the riders think? What are we talking about here? Are we to allow illusion to rule physics? How can that impressio n of a light spinning ever be a useful indicator of reality? 2) If twenty people experience something in twenty different ways, their interpretation of an event cannot alter the material, intrinsic, 'proper' nature of that event. 3) A blind man cannot see an illuminated light. For physics, i s the light actually off? Given all of the above how can the sentence below ever be claimed as credible? "All in all, the equivalence principle provides a powerful argument that light is influenced by gravity". This is just complete nonsense. The equivalence principle is inconclusive, it is not definitive, it gets misapplied, it leads to false conclusions.

9 ) www.abyss.uoregon.edu and others My last example of muddled thinking follows. Again it purports to explain how the behaviour of light is noted by diverse observers..

Diagram 20; The behaviour of light beams. (incorrect)

Here it is claimed, in the upper diagram, that " a bullet from the man on the tower would hit the robber at 50 mph, having deducted the 50 mph sp eed of the train from his 100 mph bullet " . (ok) " The bullet from the man on an adjacent travelling carriage will hit the robber (due to inertia) at 100 mph " . (ok) However a careless error causes an incorrect understanding of the lower diagram.

27 "Relativity states that the speed of light is constant in all frames, thus the light rays from both shooting men will strike the robber at the same time , and at the speed of light, 'c'". WRONG! No account as been made for the differing distances between the two men with guns and flashlights ! Light from the man on the tower has further to travel than the light from the man on the carriage. Only if the light from the man on the tower travelled faster than the light from the man on the carriage, would both beams arrive at the robber at the same time! Obviously, light takes a longer time to travel, longer and longer distances.

Diagram 21; Summing up the many differences between gravity , and the ‘pseudo force’ provided by acceleration in a non - gravitational field, thus refuting the Equivalence Principle. In addition, yet another inescapable difference being that nothing can continue to accelerate for ever , which is what a continuing 1g force requires, as an object's speed will inevitably have to approach that of light. Whereas gravity, in this example, is an inexhaustible force.

This completely counters Brian Cox's claim that "there are no experiments that you can do inside the lift (or rocket) that are able to distinguish between the possibility that you are plummeting towards earth or floating in outer space".

28 PART 3

LIGHT's FREQUENCY

Before he posited the General Theory of R elativity, Einstein had already suspected that gravity must affect a light wave’s frequency and wavelength . Consequently t here are two essential t heories in physics that pertain to a particular connection between gravity and light. I have, above, criticised situations and conditions whereby light has been wrongly assumed to be bent by gravitational forces or by acceleration; now I deal with the si tuation of the frequency of any electromagnetic wave being influenced by a gravitational force or by acceleration.

RED SHIFT, BLUE SHIFT and the GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION of LIGHT In physics , red - shift is an increase in a wavelength , (it is shifted to the red end of the spect rum ) – and the lowering of its frequency , (and the lower ing of its photon 's energy) . This we met in Part 1, when comparing a travelling spaceship to an Earthbound spaceship.

GRAVITATIONAL RED - SHIFT G ravitational red - shift is the process by which electromagnetic radiation or iginating from a source that is in a gravitational field is apparently reduced in frequency , or red - shifted , when observed in a region at a higher gravitational potential.

Einstein proposed that a gravitational red - shift happens when light tries to escape from a gravitational field. As a particle of light ( a photon) moves out of a gravitational field, it must l ose energy , working against the gravitational field. Since photons always travel at the speed of light, the only place where this energy loss can show up is in a change of freq uency . The frequency of the photon must dec rease so that the energy carried by the photon is lower, and this corres ponds to a 'red - shift' to longer wavelengths.

However it seems clear, from the rockets of Part 1, that frequencies propagated and detected i n an enclosed environment, under gravity, cannot continue to expand or shrink, as explained in diagram 3, (the Earthbound rocket), as, if they did, they would either open out to infinity or contract to zero.

It seems odd, therefore, that given Einstein wa s hypothesising about red and blue - shifts at such an early time he failed to acknowledge that this phenomena was key to the difference between a force of 1g acceleration and the force of gravity on earth, which now provides a huge question mark for the equ ivalence principle.

29 COSMOLOGICAL RED - SHIFT Cosmological red - shift is the lengthening of frequencies on a grand scale caused by the expansion of the univers e , whereby sufficiently distant light sources show red - shift s corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth.

THE POUND - REBKA EXPERIMENT

In 1960 two physicists attempted to verify the prediction of Einstein’s , whereby gravity could cha nge light’s frequency.

The two American physicists , R.V. Pound and G.A. Rebka attempted to measure, by physical experiment, the frequency difference in downward travelling photons and upward travelling photons. The results of thi s experiment are accepted by many as being conclusive of gravity's affect on light. However, it did not attempt to prove that gravity 'bends' light, although many have taken it as having done this also. It was an experiment to measure changing electromagnetic frequencies.

Photons o f a precisely determined wavelength were emitted from the top and bottom of the 22.5 meter - high Jefferson Tower at Harvard campus. When photons from the top of the tower were measured at its bottom, their wavelengths were 'apparently' decreased (blue - shif ted) by a small amount; and when photons from the bottom were measured at its top, their wavelengths were 'apparently' increased (red - shifted) by the same amount. The height difference was said to be enough to put the source and absorber out of resonance. Then , using a screw thread , the absorber was moved in the direction of the source until the Doppler effect again put the frequencies of the photons in resonance with the source.

Image 22; The Pound Rebka Experiment

30 Many now the claim that the res ults of the Pound - Rebka Experiment are “proof” of the Equivalence Principle. However, there isn't anything in the results of this research that suggests any need for an Equivalence Principle.

Before the paradoxical equivalence explanations of Pound - Rebka c an even be considered, the gravitational expansion solution must first be shown experimentally or mathematically to be false. This has never occurred.

Therefore the main problem with their reasoning lies in the rationalising of a physical process by which mass, momentum and energy can be either added to, or subtracted from , a photon, without changing its velocity or angular momentum.

If the fact that, in the Universe nothing is static, all is in motion, then, in the time that it took for the photons to t ravel between source and observer, both observers had accelerated upward s . This relative velocity between source and observer causes the descending photons to be measured with shorter wavelengths and the ascending photons to be measured with longer wavelen gths.

The apparent changes in the photon's wavelengths as measured by Pound - Rebka can only be interpreted as a Doppler shift, in which both source, observer and all photons are in the same inertial reference frame. The photons must be mo ving at exactly 'c ' relative to both source and observer. Their result actually arises from the upward change in motion of the E arth’s surface caused by the constant expansion of matter. Should this 'disregarded difference' be correctly considered, this essential addition w ill cancel out those measurement s made by Pound and Rebka , thus nullifying their results.

Such shakily constructed experiments are all too readily accepted by the scientific community, eager to have confirmed theories that would otherwise have no foundati on.

Doppler shifts produced by relative motion are among the most well - established phenomena in experimental physics , and have been accurately verified in all experiments involving relative motion . To attribute the red and blue - shifts measured by Pound and Rebka to a gravitational “field” is to deny the validity of Doppler shifts, in favour of the Equivalence Principle , which I have been criticising in this essay.

The Equivalence Principle is always added as a metaphysical precondition to the experiment in order to invalidate any measurements that are not pleasing to the human intuition.

31 J.L. Snider's later contribution to a follow - up experiment still failed to redress these issues, with a Doppler shift being far the most straightforward explanation of the Pound - Rebka results.

However, it was the firm belief in the principle of equivalence that led Einstein to develop the theory of General R elativity, which states that gravitation is no longer a force exerted by one ob ject on another, but rather a deformati on of the very structure of ' space - time ', thus the only other system proposed to explain a red and blue - shift in the travel of photons is the mathematical description of this imaginary four - dimensional material called a “space - time continuum .” where , as ph otons move through this curved space, they acquire its curvature and are thus measured to be red - and blue - shifted.

While there are no accepted or verified experimental measurements that could serve as evidence for “the space - time continuum,” itself, a bel ief in the Equivalence Principle requires one to suspend belief in such measurements as were made by Pound Rebka , in order to say that acceleration exists where it can’t be measured (falling bodies) and it is measured where it doesn’t exist (earth’s surfac e)!

Further criticisms of the Pound Rebka experiment can be found at;

http://www.circlon - theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html

http://milesmathis.c om/pound.html

PART 4

THE CONCEPT OF SPACETIME It seems therefore that before we accept the claim that gravity can attract, deflect or bend light on a local scale, we need to see how those original theories have been expanded to a grand conception of how light behaves universally. Einstein generalise d his 'falling lift' argument, (diagram 4) expanding his belief in order to figure out an explanation for a global affect on light, independent from the notion of light being deflected by proximity to mass. And in regard to this quest he need ed to go beyond the Equivalence P rinciple, and take into account his new perception of the geometry of space. His process involved dividing separate regions of space into individual strips, where by innumerable ' falling eleva tors ' could be connected together to obtain a representation of the total deflection of light which crosses a particular region of the cosmos , and consequently, t hereafter, t o be able to plot the curve of ' spacetime ' .

32 These linked strips sh ou ld form a 'ge ometry of space', and i f space were curved then these strips would have to be shaped to fit a 'limitless' sphere.

Diagram 23 ; linking falling elevators. Einstein 's conclusion then was that you can only make statements about the large - scale deflecti on of light if you can construct a theory of what space itself 'looks' like, suggesting ' that the presence of a mass curves the surrounding space' in a way that is similar to the "bending of space toward s light" which itself bends towards gravitational ma sses. This leads away from the earlier notion of gravity bending light to a more complex idea that matter bends space which bends light, and this extension requires further consideration. 1) Current physics follows this prediction of Einstein's that matter bends space , creating a matrix, and that light is necessarily bent to follow that matrix. But there is a confusion here, as the claim that ' gravity bends light', (although demolished above) is still a consideration, when gravity itself is thought to be a result of the bending nature of spacetime. This appears to be a circular argument with each component both relying upon, and additionally proving, every other element. 2) We do know that one supposition concerning light has been tested; that light from a d istant star is deflected, arguably by its proximity to mass (eg; of the sun ; see alternative explanations later). However, to assume an explanation of light's path being distorted by the application of the Equivalence Principle , when tied to an imaginary ' curve ' of space time, is to arrive at a n 'acceptable' result from untested and unsupported hypotheses. 3) Also, oddly, in all of these theories that have brought us thus far, to widely accepted conclusions, there is an implicit acceptance of the direction o f spacetime.

33 Most predominant is the notion of ' down '. In both text and image it is clear that all current thought reflects an erroneous single dimension of a vertical direction. The lift falls 'down', the light is bent 'downward', 'astronauts see the ligh t bend 'down',' etc. Even www.einstein - online offers us;

" Light is bent downward, but in a sense, so is space itself" . To explain my point, look at all the images for "mass deflects light", a "black hole", "gravitational lensing", "the curvature of spa cetime", "worm holes", "singularities", "white dwarf", "neutron stars", " The Einstein - Rosen Bridge " etc, and see that they are all deformities of a flat plane, they all have a direction, down mostly, but left and right also.

Diagram 24; the many fla t / one - dimensional interpretations of spacetime. This is a contradiction of our understand ing that , in space there is no ' up ' nor ' down ' , no ' left ' or ' right ' , nor ' clockwise ' or ' anticlockwise ' . It has no 'direction', and yet all the se illustrations empl oy this single notion of a 'bearing', whilst knowing that space is direction - less. For a better understanding of how these images should correctly be drawn, see;

http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Essays - Cosmology/Download/6448

PART 5

EINSTEIN / MINKOW SKI's ELEVATOR; 2 Nevertheless, it is the contention of general relativity that gravitation is a purely geometric consequence of the properties of spacetime , however depicted, and with the Equivalence Principle being used to explain the similarities betwe en an elevator on Earth and an elevator in space Minkowski, and later scientists, have expanded upon the 'curved spacetime' hypothesis offering greater justifications.

34 These explanations require some untangling to discover what enormous jumps in philosophi cal argument have been made to arrive at their conclusion s . In Newtonian physics , free fall is the motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. In the context of the theories of general relativity , gravitation is considered to be the result of ' space - time curvature ' where a body in free - fall has no force acting on it. It does seem that 'gravity and 'spacetime curvature' are alternative expressions for the same phenomenon; tha t the difference is purely semantic. In discussing the hypothesis abo ut spacetime 'causing' gravity ; Brian Cox writes; "In the context of general relativity , gravit ation is considered to be the result of space - time curvature" .....but then he gives this hypothesis as the self - evident and incontestable explanation for the total expulsion of gravity; "Gravity is banished in the lifts because of spacetime curvature". But, in a 'gravity free' zone, such as in distant space, away from major masses, objects do not free - fall. The International space station orbits the Earth at about 200 to 250 miles high. Astronauts appear to float, but in fact the station is falling towar ds Earth's gravity. It never hits the ground because of its tangential momentum, as by the time its fallen a meter, the ground of the earth is a meter further down - because the earth's surface is curved. But at the station's height gravity is actually stil l very strong. Here, although the Equivalence Principle seems pertinent, it is only if we restrict ourselves to a limited observation period , in a small, freely falling cabin, (necessarily in the direction of a 'gravitational' force), w e shall not notice t he difference between that cabin and floating freely in gravity - free space . Therefore it is irrelevant if, for a brief period of observation, the interior of the elevator exhibits a situation of free - fall where the occupant would appear to 'float' , and I w ill show that to exploit the circumstance of a permanently, gravity - free elevator is a danger, especially when the fallacy is expanded. Brian Cox , in such an extension, maintains that small physicists working in a falling elevator would never utter the w ord gravity. "A description by them of their world would not acknowledge gravity to exist" . Thus he accepts the notion of a permanently free - falling lift, when, of course, its shaft could never be of infinite height and , therefore, at some point , the elev ator will have to come a halt. In a further development which also considers that gravity can be "banished in the elevator" (also ignoring the fact that this false 'banishing' can be, at best, for an extremely short period ) , this further extrapolation cu rrently allows for the notion of millions of similar elevators being patched together to form a greater gravity - free zone. Minkowski had suggested that if a sphere is divided into sufficiently small squares, each of these squares could be considered as bei ng 'flat'.

Diagram 25; Minkowski's 'patch'.

In this way, where it is considered possible to add Minkows ki's flat Euclidean patches together to construct the curved surface of the earth, it is posited that it is a cceptable to add these 'gravity - fr ee' elevators together to form ' curved spacetime ' .

Diagram 26; A man floats in a free - falling lift , and the corollary of millions of similar lifts constructing a 'gravity free' sphere named 'curved spacetime'.

Brian Cox claims, "we have learned that i f gravity is around we can make it go away but only at the expense of making spacetime curved. Gravity is a signal to us that spacetime is curved"

36 and "since gravity is found in the vicinity of matter we can conclude that spacetime is warped in the vicin ity of matter" Not only is this semantics again, but this again becomes a totally circular argument, with each idea enforcing the next. So here (1 & 2) we have matter influencing spacetime ; (1) "the presence of matter causes distortions or warps in space time" . and; (2) "Matter tells spacetime how to curve". but also we have the opposite, (3) spacetime influencing matter ; (3) "Spacetime tells matter how to move, in orbits for example". The chicken and the egg both came first! Clearly we initially have a f aulty justification of a gravity - free zone, (the temporary free - falling elevator) which , with multiplication , is declared to allow for a total banishing of gravity by the creation of 'spacetime'. ( which, through semantics, provides the same characteristic s as gravity.) Even if the free - falling elevator does allow for, apparently, gravity - free moments, i t is not axiomatic that the creation of a gravity - free 'planet' , or environment, of similarly falling elevators , is an unquestionable outcome of conjoining them .

THE REPRESENTATION OF SPACETIME Einstein 's Theory of Relativity maintains that it is m ass itself which distorts a matrix of spacetime, causing it to curve, believing that any material that has mass and occup ies space has some weight to it, and that weight will cause a disruption in the space - time continuum.

Diagram 27; The faulty analogy of balls in a net.

I t was Einstein who initially provided the dubious example of "taking a thin cloth and stretching it as far as possible, before putting a smal l round object in the middle of it to observe that it sags a little".

Above I dismissed the fallacy of a flat p l ane of spacetime being able to be warped but Einstein's contention continues; "subsequently adding a ball of a much larger weight, 'noticing' that the thin cloth sagged much more deeply".

This philosophical jump is definitely not self evident whereby the thin cloth analogy demonstrates how space would bend in the presence of matter, nor is the further jump axiomatic which proclaims that since s pace and time are unified, time is considered also to distort under the presence of matter. A correct interpretation of any effect a mass might have on the structure of space would have to be represented in three dimensions as shown below, but adding time into the diagram would leave a huge question as to the path it would follow.

Diagram 28; The possible three dimensional effect that mass might have on the structure of space.

Once the simplistic flat view of a matrix of spacetime is overturned, the eas e and ad - hoc manner in which time has been appended is no longer so straightforward. Instead of a flow of time neatly traversing a randomly uneven landscape it should be viewed as being chaotically interwoven in a complex three dimensional mesh, if we ar e to persist with Einstein's initial proposition. A highly detailed investigation into the confusing misrepresentation of the diagrams purporting to represent spacetime can be found at; http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Essays - Cosmology/Download/6448

38 Next I wish to examine how the spurious extrapolation from the Equivalence Principle's confidence that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same , has been assumed by various, established theories of Time Dilation.

PART 6 THE CONFLICTING ISSUES OF TIME DILATION; 1, the THEORIES 1) GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION T he Equivalence principle predicts a dilation of time caused by the gravitational field of massive objects . This is different from time dilation attributed to accelerated frames of reference . Unlike the observer's experiencing relativistic time dilation (see below) gravitational time dilation, as judged, is not reciprocal . All observers – those at sea level, and those on a mountain top – agree that the clock nearer the mass is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference. That is, a mountain top observer sees the sea level clocks as moving more slowly than his own , and those living at sea level see the mountain observer's clock as moving faster. This accords with general relativity , where it is asserted that clocks at a position with lower gravitational potential – such as being in a closer proximity to a planet – are found to be running more slowly than those at a distance from that field.

Diag ram 29 Gravitational time dilation

39 It is claimed that clocks that rely on frequency emission are considered to be affected by being red - shifted as they move further away from our planet's mass. Therefore, i t is claimed that the further away from massive b odies clocks are, the faster they run. CONFUSING CONCLUSIONS By this notion, an atomic clock situated at the top of Everest would be 39 hours ahead of one at sea level, had they been synchronised at the birth of the Earth, and to believe that time dilatio n is real , would require us to assume that walking up the mountain is the s ame as walking into the future. However, a view through a telescope of a clock tower far below should verify that the top of the mountain and the sea level location would share the same present. SIDEREAL TIME Perhaps the reliance on atomic clocks is clouding straightforward circumstances for physics. Perhaps a caesium clock is not a suitable timepiece for scientific research no matter how 'accurate' they are claimed to be. I f we use the rotation of the earth as a clock , at the same time as the currently acceptable caesium clock , we could, for each observer, use as our reference the position of the fixed stars in sidereal time , still with observer A at the top of a mountain, and obser ver B at sea level. We would then give each observer a caesium clock, and a sidereal clock. The sidereal clocks mark a tick when the reference star is directly overhead each day. The caesium clocks mark a tick when 23.93477 hours have passed in their loc al time. We can then , sometime later, compare the clocks to determine if they are counting at the same rate. What would happen is that when the reference star passes over the red vertical line (diagram 30 below) passing through observer A and B, both sid ereal clocks have no choice but to trigger at the same moment . Because this propagation time is of a fixed amount, it does not affect the rate at which the two clocks count – therefore the count rate is exactly the same. However, since science believes th at caesium clocks experience the effect of red shifted pulses , the caesium clock at observer A must count faster than the caesium clock at observer B.

Diagram 30; The sidereal clock.

If we had pre - synchronized the two clocks at sea level, then t he caesium clock at observer A will begin to go out of synchronization with the other three clocks, and the amount of time gained by caesium clock A will continue to increase as the days pass. The fact that we have now introduced (sidereal) clocks, consid ered immune to time dilation , implies that real time has never changed at the top of the mountain. There are in fact multiple mathematical routes by which a correct prediction can be achieved , but these theories may imply very different interpretations o f what our physical reality is. And this is at the heart of what is wrong with the theory of relativity . Relativity may make successful predictions based on math ematics , but it implies a nature of time and space which are not only inconsistent with logic a nd reason, but are even contradictory. O ur thought experiment with sidereal clocks has shown that the entire premise that time dilation corresponds to a change in “real” time is highly questionable. If time dilation is an illusion, then the entire 4D tim e - space continuum of Einstein should be considered, “superfluous.”

2) RELA TIVISTIC TIME DILATION Relativistic time dilation has the opposite effect from gravitational time dilation. I now discuss three prominent 'proofs' of relativistic time dilation whic h, however, can be shown to be completely flawed. After each description I present the recognised axiom which contradicts both the methods and the results of these testimonies. For those who have read my papers

41 http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Essays - Relativity%20Theory/Download/6227 http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Essays - Cosmology/Download/6448 you might want to skip these paragraphs as this part of this paper is repetitious.

EINSTEIN 's TRAIN and PYTHAGORAS Einstein's thought experiment, on which t he major part of modern physic's belief in relativistic time dilation rests, has two parallel mirrors travelling in a carriage with a passenger , which is witnessed by an outside observer. Both record their experiences. "As the carriage moves" , goes the theory, "the passenger sees a beam of light bouncing back and forth between the mirrors". (diagram 31 )

Diagram 31 ; Theory; The passenger sees a beam of light bouncing between two mirrors as she travels to the left .

The theory continues; "The outside observer experiences something different. Because the train has moved since the beam left the first mirror, the second mirror is not, for him, still opposite the source mirror, but is further down the line. With each reflection the beam must travel a diag onal course to keep within the mirrors". (diagram 32).

Diagram 32 ; Theory; The outside observer 'sees' a diagonal track for the light beam.

This led to the following equation, based on Pythagoras.

Diagram 33 ; Einstein's maths, on there being a time difference for two observers.

The passenger's understanding of time is the time it takes for the light beam to travel distance 'L' above. The outside observer experiences the time taken for the light beam to be of a longer duration. His view, the hypoten use 'D' , is longer than ' L' but the speed of light must b e constant. Therefore , the theory decides , that time is slower for the travelling observer. This is Einstein's relativistic time dilation.

AXIOM: The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion Given that, no - one is ever not in motion, and given that both could be viewed as being in equal motion by the other, there is no difference in their experience of time passing.

43 . AXIOM: the laws of physics are not a matter of opinion. The opinion of the outside observer is irrelevant , whatever he thinks. Secondly, the whole theory is flawed as; 1) light can never bounce off a parallel mirror at any other degree than 90 degrees. 2) light cannot be dragged along by the mirrors, it is its own reference frame. 3) light has no 'knowledge' that the mirrors are moving, therefore the bouncing beam will not travel with the train and passenger , but will fall off the mirror for both observers .

Diagram 34; A bouncing, reflected, light - beam escape s from moving mirrors.

THE PULSE ALTERNATIVE Some physicists choose to exploit a pulse of light, rather than using reflecting parallel mirrors to explain time dilation at high speeds. However, it should now be clear that even a regular pulse being emitted in a fast moving craft, aimed at an onboard target, would experience the pulse missing that target, as the goal will have moved out of the way of the approaching light.

Diagram 35, Coloured pulses are emitted from a spacecraft's source and travel in a 'spatially' upward direction. The pulses miss the target as they are independent of the forward motion of the craft.

PENROSE'S ANDROMEDA ARMADA Roger Penrose describes the different experiences of ' simultaneity ' in an example of two people on Earth, e ach of whom experiences a different conception of 'now'. O ne observer is walking in a direction which can be considered to be 'towards' the Andromeda G alaxy and the other protagonist is walking in the opposite direction. The person walking ' towards ' Andr omeda will have a ' now ' moment that ca n be hours or days ahead of the person walking away. This, Penrose maintains, is because of the intergalactic distances involved . "Even with quite slow relative velocities between the observers, significant differences in time ordering will occur". W hen they pass each other they both agree that this ' now ' moment is simultaneous. However, for one , a space fleet has been launc hed with the intent to destroy E arth , whilst for the other the decision to invade Earth has yet t o be made. Of course the madness of this suggestion can be made obvious by ' Reductio ad Absurdum '. Some time later...... F or one observer all is well with th e world, but for the other, although merely yards apart , he is a smoking skeleton and the world i s in ruins.

45 Given that everyone on Earth will be moving in millions of different directions , all of the Earth's population's movements sh ould be influencing the armada 's position in space. The fallacy of this 'proof' does not need further explanation!

L IGHTNING STRIKES a TRAIN Andrew Thomas gives us a re - run of this common explanation of time being different for two observers. "Two lightning bolts hit both ends of a train carriage in which stands Bob. The carriage is travelling to the right". Diagram 36 . "Alice, the outside observer, sees the two bolts hit the carriage at the same time. She is equidistant from both flashes. The light from both flashes reach her at the same moment. The flashes, therefore, appear to her to be synchronous". "As the train is moving to the right," Andrew Thomas correctly maintains, "the distance is shortening between Bob (in the centre of the carriage ) and the point where the front flash hit, and lengthening between himself and the location of the rear flash". ('shortening' yes , but at a totally insignificant speed next to the speed of the flashes) Thomas erroneously maintains that the front flash will hit Bob first and the rear flash later, thus Bob has a different opinion of the flashes' timing , from Alice. This difference lea ds both Thomas and other physicists to maintain that time is different for a moving observer.

Diagram 36; Lightning bolts strike both ends of a railway carriage. Thomas sums up; 1) The distance to each source of light at the front and the back of the ca rriage is exactly the same. 2) The speed of light from each light source to Bob is exactly the same.

46 3) The light rays did not reach Bob simultaneously.

B elow we have a diagram which is drawn incorrectly to show how Bob sees the front flash first, but thi s construction is irrelevant, it ignores the huge difference in the speed of light and the speed of the train.

Diagram 37; an incorrect view of Bob's experience.

What is relevant is the point in space when the bolts struck, as marked on the track. ( Blue arrows) The lig ht from the strike travelled an equal distance from each carriage - end to Bob at the particular moment of the strike for, at that important moment , those distances were equal.

To show the carriage having moved forward some distance , whilst the light from the front strike is travelling towards Bob , requires the train to be travelling faster than light itself. The two distances (from Bob to each en d of his carriage) are no longer relevant after the lightning has struck, they are no longer per tinent to the maths. The continuing movement of the train affects nothing , as the light from the flash will have reached Bob already, (again, unless the train is faster than light speed . ) And if it is the opinion of Bob that these flashes were not synchron ous then; AXIOM; the laws of physics are not a matter of opinion . Bob's measured distances alter immediately , meaning that the instant after the lightning struck , those distances are no longer pertinent. All this would be obviou s to the outside observer to o , especially if the carriage's long wall were glass, when both observers would see when each flash reached Bob. M easurements for both protagonists sh ould be from the points on the track where the bolts struck to the position of Bob only at the very momen t of the strike . I am sure you can see that all distances would therefore coincide .

47 DIVERGENT CLOCKS Current belief maintains that w hen two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each wil l be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the their own clock. The faster the relative velocity , the greater the magnitude of time dilation of the reciprocal event, when b oth observers are situated at a great distance from a ny s ignificant gravitational mass.

Diagram 38; Relativistic time dilation, each astronaut sees the other's clock as running slow.

CONFUSING CONCLUS IONS

T he time change experienced by the I nternational S pace S tation astronaut s, we are told, is of a slowed down time . This would correspond to the expected (by physics) result of their relative velocity against that of the Earth. Their clocks are running more slowly than those on Earth. However, the reduced gravitational influence at their location should speed time up (also according to physics!) . And this damning conflict then leads us to question the whole notion of time dilation. There has to come a time and a place when a n impossible situation arises; when two (moving frames of reference) craft are travelling at a similar distance from a significant gravitational mass, in an orbit where the two time dilation differences (velocity and gravitational) m erge and conflict!

48 So, let us consider two spaceships, far from a gravitational mass. The astronaut in each reads the other's clock as running more slowly than their own, due to relativistic velocity time dilation, as in diagram 38 . Employing the time dil ation predictions of the "Twin's Paradox" both astronauts would have aged far more slowly than people on Earth. Now consider that one of the craft approaches Earth, falling into closer and closer orbit. At a particular finite time this craft must suddenly fall under the influence of the red - shifted time dilation impact of Earth's gravity. This spaceship's clock, at that instant, would for a moment, have to unite with Earth's 'proper' time, as the gravitational effect of a faster clock (at that height) met with exactly the opposite affects of the craft's velocity - affected slow clock, now at a closer distance to a gravitational mass. One moment the spaceship would be out of sync with the Earth by its time being behind , suddenly finding the clock's hands spi nning to accommodate its new time now being ahead of Earth's proper time.

Diagram 39; The conflicting concepts of velocity and gravitational time dilation.

Further to this, if the two spaceships, now being at differing distances from the mass of the Ear th, are maintaining their velocities, then the reciprocal understanding of their relative times will be suddenly broken, their two clocks will no longer have any acceptable reciprocal correlation.

49 It seems clear that somewhere there is faulty thinking. Sci entifically there cannot be a possibility of a chaotic relationship with time. Is it in the misconception or misapplication of the equivalence principle, is it a misunderstanding of the influence of frequency change or of acceleration? Is it a misundersta nding of the impact of gravity on time itself, or are we utilising (atomic) clocks that are unreliable under these circumstances? Maybe sidereal time, which would remain a 'proper' time in all instances, is more relevant to physics than the complicated and unsubstantiated notions of dilation? Arguments against time dilation itself can be found at; http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Essays - Relativity%20Theory/Download/6227

CURVED and FLAT SPACE The last questionable theory concerning divergent time is th at being again defined by the experience of two observers, one far away from any gravitational field, and a second observer situated within a gravitational field. I describe the circumstances of this further awkward theory .

Two characters are able to su rvey one another. "The far - away observer, floating in space in this example, sees 'curved' space while the reference frame for the observer in the gravitational field (yellow man) sees 'flat' space " .

Speed is defined as a change in distance divided by a change in time, and as the speed of light in bo th reference frames is constant, the variable, apparently, is time.

The example continues ; "a curved path is by necessity longer than a flat path, (conflicting with spacetime's geodesics!) so the floating obs erver must measure a longer time interval than does the observer in the gravitational field".

But why is the curved path longer? Of course it isn't. The mistake here is to assume the flat path is the diameter of the Earth rather than the circumference, f or the earthbound observer. It is incorrect to assert that he sees a 'flat' image.

If one 'unpeels' the view of both we can see from the image below that their views are equivalent.

Diagram 40; The equal area as seen by two observers. The curved dime nsion on which the earthbound observer stands is exactly equal to the view of the distant observer. How could it be otherwise? The length of the black arrows are identical. Thus the concept is flawed. I hope that I have demonstrated in this chapter how the various theories of time dilation conflict with one another, allowing us to criticise the whole concept of a non absolute time. Now I would like to address those experiments which claim to have verified those theories, especially those that attempt to exp loit the main topic of this paper, namely the Equivalence Principle.

PART 7 THE CONFLICTING ISSUES OF TIME DILATION; the EXPERIMENTS 1) Gravity Probe A The objective of the Gravity Probe A experiment was to test the validity of the equivalence principle , to prove that that the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether you consider a uniformly accelerating reference frame , or a reference frame that that is acted upon by uniform gravitational field .

51 In 1976, t he 100 kg Gravity Probe A spacecraft was launched from a vertica l position and reached a height of 6,200 miles. The large change in the gravitational potential was recorded by a maser, acting as a clock. At its maximum height, relativity predicted a clock should run 4.5 parts in 10 10 faster than one on the Earth. The goal of the experiment was to measure the rate at which time passes while under the influence of a changing gravitational field, During two hours of free fall from its maximum height, the rocket transmit ted timed puls es from the maser oscillator, which were compared with a similar clock on the ground. The claimed result confirmed a gravitational time dilation relationship to within 0.01%. A microwave repeater was also included in the probe in order to measure and remov e the Doppler shift of the maser signal. A Doppler shift occurs when a source is moving relative to the observer of that source, and results in a shift in the frequency that corr esponds to the direction and magnitude of the sourc e's motion. The two clock rates were then compared with the theoretical predictions of how the two clock rates would differ. The stability of the maser permitted measurement of changes in the rate of the maser of 1 part in 10 14 for a 100 - second measurement. The experiment was thus able to test the equivalence principle . Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction tha t gravity slows the flow of time and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million or the equivalent of a clock that loses less than two s econds every 100 million years. However this experiment relied upon a clock that could itself be influenced by the red and blue shifts it is measuring , so, whilst proving that gravity affected the behaviour of a pulsed signal it does not axiomatically prove gravity's direct influence on 'proper' time itself.

2) Hafele an d Keating The Hafele and Keating experiment involved flying planes around the world with atomic clocks on board. Upon the trips' completion the cl ocks were compared to a static, ground based atomic clock. It was found that 273±7 nanoseconds had been gained on the planes' clocks , thus claiming to prove Einstein's predictions. For further reading on this experiment please see;

http://gsjournal.net/Sc ience - Journals/Essays - Relativity%20Theory/Download/6227 which gives an extensive report on the errors within this experiment. Additional complaints about their procedure can be found on; http://www.anti - relativity.com/hafelekeatingdebunk.htm Basically, t hr ee of the clocks did not keep the same drift rate when on the ground, between the Eastward and Westward tests. There fore there can be little confidence

52 that the same clocks would perform far better while they were transported in passenger seats upon commer cial planes.

3) The National Physical Laboratory The National Physical Laboratory performed a re - enactment of the H afele - K eating experiment in 1996 using more accurate atomic clocks , flying to and from W ashing ton and London. A time gain of 39 ± 2 ns was o bserved, compared to a relativistic prediction of 39.8 ns. They repeated the experiment in 2010 travelling the route London - Los Angeles - Auckland - Hong Kong - London. The predicted value s then were 246 ± 3 ns, the measured value 230 ± 20 ns.

4) University of Maryland A similar experiment was perf ormed by a research group at the University of Maryland ar ound 1976. This was to combine g ravitational and velocity time dilation tests. Three atomic clocks wer e flown to an altitude of 10 km above ground, having been synchronised to three other atomic clocks on the ground . Five 15 hour trips were flown, and the plane ' s position and veloc ity were measured every second. The time difference was measur ed by direct clock comparison on the ground before and after the flight, as well as laser pulses of 0.1 ns duration whilst in flight . An overall difference of 47.1 ns was measured, which consisted of the velocity effect of - 5.7 ns and a gravitational effect of 52.8 ns. This agrees with the relativistic predictions to a precision of about 1.6%. 5) Accelerating Muons A further practical experiment that claims to prove time dilation was carried out at the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron at Brookhaven. An atomic particle ( a muon) which has a known , short, lifespan of 2. 2 microseconds was accelerated around the 14 meter diameter circular tube of the synchrotron at 99.94% of the speed of light. The normal lifespan of a muon would allow it to complete 15 laps of the synchrotr on before it decayed. However the muon completed 400 laps before decaying. The conclusion was that time, for the muon, was moving more slowly, because of its extreme speed, allowing it to travel further in its own personal, slower, time frame, thus proving time dilation. However, there is another explanation of the phenomenon of an extension to the muon's lifespan that can be shown by another experiment, made at Stanford, California, which provides an alternative, and more probable, reason for the increased life of an accelerated muon. As an object increases speed so it also increases its energy; it acquires kinetic energy - the energy of motion, and energy is assumed to possess mass.

53 An accelerated muon could not take on that extra energy without, at the s ame time, taking on the extra mass that goes with kinetic energy So when Stanford scientists accelerated muons down a straight tube 3 kilometres long they discovered, that by the time the particles emerged at the far end, they had a mass 40,000 times large r than when they began their journey. Those muons accelerated at Brookhaven, similarly, must have experienced a huge increase in their mass , and this greater mass would clearly take a longer time to decay than the expected lifespan of a muon outside of a p article accelerator. This clearly is more acceptable answer than time dilation. A further note; If there was such a phenomenon as ‘time dilation’, then, accepting the axiom that there is no such thing as ‘absolute motion’ , it would be also entirely fair to consider that the Brookhaven muon was stationary, and it was the scientists and their laboratory that was flying past at 99.94% of the speed of light, thus experiencing time dilation themselves!

CONFUSING CONCLUSIONS atomic clocks . The results of all t hese experiments although all record apparent differences in time, those differences, being so very small, allows one to question the exactness and the type of the measuring equipment. The National Standards A gencies in many countries maintain a network o f atomic clocks which are inter - compared and kept s ynchronized to an accuracy of 10 - ⁹ seconds per day . ( A huge figure in comparison with those being measured above). They are compared so as to signal any discrepancy - (thus allowing for the fact that disc repancies can occur). An adjustment process is employed which tries to correct any unwanted side - effects, such as frequencies from other electron transitions, temperature changes, and , further, to avoid inherent ' pulling ' effects which make repeatability t roublesome . Two additional issues which could be pertinent to the alleged results above is that w hen a clock is first turned on, it takes a while for the oscillator to stabilize. Also, these clocks, on Earth are chilled inside a container of liquid nitrog en, to −193 °C . This cycled cooling dramatically lowers the background radiation and thus reduces some of th e very small measurement errors. Such a temperature is unlikely to have been maintained for the atomic clocks on the aircraft used in the listed exp eriments above. INFRARED THERMOMETERS Consider a laser or infrared thermometer; a highly accurate measuring device of temperature. These employ extremely sophisticated optics to measure radiated heat.

54 However there are two important factors that can have a drastic affect the accuracy of a measured value. These are Spot Size and Emissivity. Emissivity is a term based on an objects ability to emit radiated heat The problem of determining the correct value can be difficult to overcome. The whole colour spect rum and reflective nature of the target object must be accounted for. The error in the accuracy of a measured value can be as much as 30% of the reading, just based on the emissivity. All objects have the ability to absorb and emit radiated heat, but at d ifferent values. If you were to set up a controlled space with identical conditions. Dark dull objects such as concrete or rubber would keep more heat than reflective surfaces such as steel. Also external sources can interfere with the accuracy of the re ading. Dust, smoke, steam and even light can all cause inaccuracies. If taken from too great a distance the spot size may include unintended surface areas. Now imagine using an infrared thermometer to measure the surface temperature of an object made from polished steel, situated in a hyper - clean laboratory. Here we have a very accurate tool focussed on a coherent object in perfect conditions. However, the very nature of the way the tool is constructed stands in the way of its accurate performance in this case. Clearly it is possible to use this very precise tool to measure the temperature of something that itself turns out to be inappropriate for obtaining a correct reading. In this case, in fact, the measurement that it makes could only be a test of its o wn performance; of how it fails to be accurate in those particular circumstances. Therefore the choice of any measuring device cannot employ a driving mechanism that is itself affected by the object being measured. The mechanism of atomic clocks, therefor e, may very well be influenced in this way to give results that record the object ' s influence on itself , negating its ability to ascertain what it is meant to be measuring. You may remember from page 40 that it is claimed that clocks that rely on frequency emission are considered to be affected by being red - shifted as they move further away from our planet's mass. Similarly measuring devices with similar mechanisms must also be adversely affected in their performance . As examined earlier, a sidereal clock would have recorded the 'proper' time of all these events and would have shown no time differences at all between the travelling and the Earthbound timepieces. AXIOM ; A cardinal rule for any research involving statistics, is that you cannot find your h ypot hesis in your results. Before you go to your data with your statistical tool you have to have a hypothesis to test. If your hypothesis comes from analysing the data, then there is no sense in analysing the same data to confirm it. The interpretation of su ch fine variables as

55 exhibited in the results above leads one to question the limits of the experiments' possibilities.

PART 8 THE ALTERNATIVES The Sagnac Effect The Sagnac effect is probably the very best alternative explanation for the need to alter clo cks that mark time above the surface of the Earth. The Sagnac effect is an alternative explanation of the apparent time difference between clock s on Earth and clocks in motion and unlike the explanations of g ravitational and relativistic time dilatio n ther e is no endemic conflict of embodied ideas. The principle. On the rim of a rotating disk two light paths originate from a single source. O ne is directed clockwise and the other directed counter - clockwise around the rim of the disk , after which they both r eturn to a common detector where their individual time of flight is measured. When that disk is rotating , or itself travelling forward, the point of the light's propagation/detection moves forward during the transit time of the light, The backwards - propag ating beam will cover less distance than the forwards - propagating beam and therefore arrives at the detector earl ier. This creates a shift in an interference pattern by the arrival of the, now, out - of - sync beams. The shift of the interference fringes is t hereby proportional to the disks angular velocity. GPS and the Sagnac Effect The Global Positioning System needs to take the rotation of Earth (the rotating disc, from the case above ) into account in the procedures of using radio signals to synchronize cl ocks between their orbits and the Earth. The Sagnac Effect is also considered in the operation of i nertial guidance systems. if that system is to return correct results. Atmospheric refraction Atmospheric refraction is the deviation of light or other electromagnetic wave s from a straight line as they pass through the atmosphere , due to the variation in air density as a function of height , as with the displacement of the Sun 's image at sunrise and sunset. This refraction is due to the velocity of light through air decreasing (the index of refraction increases) with increased density.

56 Atmospheric refraction near the ground produces mirages and can make distant objects appear to shimmer or ripple, to be elevated or lowered, or to be stretched or shortened . Astronomical refraction Astronomical or celestial refraction causes astronomical objects to appear high er in the sky than they are in reality. Refraction not only affects light - rays but all electromagnetic radiation , although in varying degrees . For example, in visible light, blue is more affected than red. T he amount of atmospheric refraction is a functio n of 1) the temperature gradient , 2) the temperature , 3) pressure , and 4) humidity ( especially important at mid - infrared wavelengths .

Diagram 41; Atmospheric refraction. Terrestrial refraction Terre strial refraction deals with the apparent angular position and measured distance of terrestrial bodies As a common approximation, terrestrial refraction is considered as a constant bending of the ray of light or line of sight, in which the ray can be consi dered as describing a circular path. A common measure of refraction is the coefficient of refraction. Unfortunately there are two different definitions of this coefficient. One is the ratio of the radius of the Earth to the radius of the line of sight, th e other is the ratio of the angle that the line of sight subtends at the centre of the Earth to the angle of refraction measured at the observer. Turbulence Turbulence in the atmosphere scatters the light from stars, making them appear brighter and fainter on a time - scale of milliseconds. The slowest components of these fluctuations are visible as "scintillation"

57 T urbulence also causes small random motions of the star image, and produces rapid changes in its structure. These effects are not visible to the naked eye, but are easily seen even in small telescopes.

PART 9

THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE, SPACETIME and LIG HT I have spent some time above describing the notion of spacetime and how it was formulated. Now I will investigate concomitant ideas which have the curvature of spacetime as their foundation, with a note of how each could be faulty. Spacetime has as its premise that t he sum of spatial and time velocity alway s equals the speed of light. Objects either spent this velocity all in the temporal direction (at rest) or in some mixture of time and space.

LIGHT's TIME the physics; AXIOM for light time has no mea ning . AXIOM : all things happen at once for time . AXIOM ; The space / time sum allows for one to say that light doesn't experience the passing of time. CONFLICT 1) If light really does not experience time , then light must be everywhere already; it must be i n the past , present and the future too. How can it exist in an unpredictable time yet to come? 2) Photons are created by an electron emitting a photon . An electron in an atom's high energy level can be instantly converted into a lower energy - level electron and a photon. There is no in - between state where the photon is being constructed. It instantly pops into existence. 3) A photon can be destroyed when absorbed by an electron. All its energy is imparted to the electron, which instantly jumps to a new energ y level. The photon itself ceases to be. 4) Therefore there must be a non - existing time for a photon and an existing time too. The number of photons everywhere must change, therefore to say that time has no meaning for light is disingenuous.

58 LIGHT's TRAV EL the physics AXIOM ; Space intervals shrink for light. AXIOM : Distances in spacetime are invariant The notion of spacetime claims that light may travel the vast distances through the galaxy , but that light does not experience this journey, as it is every where already, (irrespective of photons being impermanent.)

CONFLICT 1) If light really is everywhere, why then does it have to appear to travel, to outside observers? 2) If light is everywhere , why does it need to be created and why does it need to be pr opagated? 3) Why is light composed of waves and/ or particles if light is 'there' already? 4) How c an light actually travel vast distances if it itself experiences no time valu e? 5) Does the fact that we attribute a time for light's travel ( from distant sta rs for example) have no 'proper' meaning? 6) Is there really no connection between the observer ' s view of light ' s time travel and light ' s own experience of that same journey? 7) Can light actually 'experience' anything, are we at fault in attributing to li ght , human responses?

LIGHT SPEED SHRINKAGE the physics AXIOM ; Space is shortened in high velocity frames, (the Lorentz contraction). AXIOM ; O bjects shrink in the direction of travel. AXIOM : The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform mo tion.

Physics believes that objects shrink, in the direction of travel, as they approach the speed of light. Physics tells us that length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length of an object as determined by an observer who is travelling at any non - zero velocity relative to the object. Length contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling.

59 CONFLICT 1) The laws of physics are not a matter of opinion or conjecture , therefore how valuable is the opinion of the outside observer in determining the 'proper' length of an object? 2) Does any object actually alter its 'proper' length nearing the speed of light, and if so, how do its atoms and particles compress to nothing?

LIGHT and SPACE INTER VALS the physics AXIOM ; S pace intervals shrink to zero along the line of flight for light In relativity we don't so much draw squares and circles but use a version of the Pythagorean theorem to measure distances between points in spacetime, and this is cal led the "spacetime interval." When our spacetime interval does not make nice Euclidean triangles, then we say our spacetime is curved. CONFLICT 1) I f space intervals shrin k why does light have to travel at all, and how does this affect our idea of great d istances? 2) Is it obvious to employ the fact that a Pythagorean / Euclidean triangle spread onto a sphere will not have its internal angles add to 360 degrees to prove that, necessarily geodesics will provide the only available paths for light?

LIGHT and OBJECTS at REST the physics AXIOM ; Spacetime has it that a stationary object moves through time at the speed of light. AXIOM ; a clock si tting at rest whizzes along the time direction at speed c with no movement through space

CONFLICT 1) If so, wouldn't that stationary object shri nk to nothing, and , if then, time doesn't exist for it , would that object, ( if a potato ), rot or live forever? 2) How can an observed phenomenon of the length of an object differ from its 'proper' length.

60 3) Once again this seem s to contravene the idea that the laws of physics are not a matter of opinion or conjecture .

LIGHT and FRAMES of REFERENCE the physics . AXIOM ; Everything moves through spacetime at the speed of light I n Minkowski spacetime, we understand that all frames o f reference will agree on the total distance , in spacetime , between events . T he absolute value of the total combined vector of any object through spacetime is the same regardless of frame of reference. That means that if it moves at ' c ' in one frame of ref erence, it moves at ' c ' in all frames of reference.

CONFLICT 1) An object cannot travel at 'c', as that would require infinite energy. 2) If an object could travel at 'c' it would have no dimension, having shrunk completely in the direction of travel. (ac cording to physics). 3) If everything is moving through spacetime at the same speed, isn't that the same as saying they don't, as the relative speeds, times and distances would be common to all?

LIGHT and CURVED SPACETIME the physics

AXIOM ; "Gravity does NOT cause spacetime to curve - matter/energy does. The curvature of spacetime is simple called gravity".

AXIOM ; "In Einstein's geometric theory of gravity, the situation is described in a completely different way:

AXIOM ; "A mass that we place in an regio n of space will lead to a distortion of space - time. Empty spacetime is flat - it looks exactly like the spacetime of special relativity. Spacetime in the presence of masses is curved".

AXIOM; " Gravity re - defines what it means to move on a straightest poss ible line " .

AXIOM ; " A given configuration of matter distorts spacetime geometry " .

AXIOM : " This distorted geometry makes matter move in certain ways " .

61 AXIOM ; " In curved space - time, there are no straight lines - just as there are no straight lines on the s urface of a sphere " . AXIOM; " The closest we can get to the notion of a straight line is a geodesic, a spacetime curve that is as straight as possible " . CONFLICT 1) With spacetime allowing so many opportunities for light to be bent or curved it is hard to imagine how we can measure straight distances to far flung galaxies. 2) Only if spacetime can be represented by two dimensional diagrams, as discussed earlier can these statements about the direction of light be maintained.

LIGHT and RELATIVITY the physi cs AXIOM ; objects, or coordinate systems, movin g with constant velocity ( inertial frames) are relative only to themselves . A woman in a plane travelling from London to New York can be considered not to have moved (relative to herself). AXIOM ; If you don 't move, relative to yourself, you are travelling at c. AXIOM ; Anything travelling at 'c', will have no time and be shrunk to zero AXIOM ; A s you sit still in your chair you 're travelling across the spacetime landscape at exactly the same speed as everythin g else in the universe,

Brian Cox provides an example; "a motorcyclist can choose to calculate distances in spacetime relative to himself and from this p oint of view he will not have moved in space . T herefore his speed through spacetime is 'c'." Cox main tains that a woman travelling in a plane from London to New York has also not moved, relative to herself.

CONFLICT 1) The Motorcyclist; There must be a time element otherwise travelling at 'c' would reduce his time and size to zero. 2) The Twin's Paradox; Similarly to the motorcyclist theory, in this famous conundrum, the stay - at - home twin is considered to have moved only through time. She has not, apparently, moved relative to herself . She has used none of her 'space' of her 'spacetime', only her 'time' o f 'spacetime'. Her sister who has travelled to Andromeda and back is younger than her stay - at - home twin because she has used up a great deal of the 'space' of her 'spacetime' and, therefore, less of her 'time' of 'spacetime'.

62 Why, therefore, can we not say , of the travelling twin, that she has not moved either, relative to herself , if we can say of the woman in the plane, and of the motorcyclist, that they have not moved relative to themselves. Their circumstances are pertinently similar. 3) Any acceleratio n or deceleration applied to the travelling twin could, (as there is no such thing as absolute motion), also be attributed to the stay - at - home twin. 4) When the travelling twin arrives back at Earth she inevitably returns to the upright timeline, therefore she has actually moved up the whole of that time line as well as having travelled along the space axis.

LIGHT and MINKOWSKI SPACE the physics ;

Diagram 42; Minkowski's spacetime. The above Minkowski spacetime diagram shows time over space, the dot ted lines represents the speed of light. The top parabola represents the future, the lower represents the past. The left and right areas are 'elsewhere' and have no purpose. AXIOM ; a photon has no time. AXIOM : time uses all of its spacetime velocity in t he spatial direction and has none leftover for the time direction . AXIOM : Zero time has passed for a photon created at the beginning of the Universe.

63 CONFLICT 1) The Minkowski diagram dictates that the 45 degree line represents the speed of light. Howeve r, this clearly shows that light does have a time element, in fact, as it's direction is set at 45 degrees it must have the same time element as it has distance in space as it has traversed the time and space axes equally. Surely if light has no time it s hould lie directly along the 'space' axis in the same way as objects 'at rest' lie vertically, following the upright 'time' axis. 2) A 45 degree line for light must acknowledge that it has moved through time. 3) Brian Cox's says of his motorcyclist that " if he could travel due east then he could go as far as he wanted in that easterly direction without any time passing at all, because he would not travel any distance up the northerly time direction. This would correspond to an infinite speed through space, he would get from a to b instantaneously." Isn't this what physics is maintaining about light? That light has no time. Clearly Cox is in a disagreement with Minkowski over whether light is a 45 degree line or a line flat on the 'x' axis!

PART 10 SUMMARY In this essay I have endeavoured to point out the significant inconsistencies in current physics theory that stem from Einstein's belief in the Equivalence Principle. Evidently there are flaws in that original premise and those flaws have been allowed to gestate into far reaching theories which, themselves, now have to be reconsidered. Here I outline the problems discussed. 1) The Equivalence Principle is imprecise. Acceleration and gravity are not entirely equivalent. I have described the differences. 2) The Equivalence Principle crucially ignores the fact that the acceleration of a space craft requires a continuous and an inexhaustible fuel source, whereas gravity does not. 3) By empl oying the Equivalence Principle to Einstein's 'elevator', and other sim ilar theories of equality , conclusions have been drawn that are now doubtful. 4) Physics generally seems to accept that an observer's misinterpretation of events (the bending of light) or their misinterpretation of The Equivalen ce Principle, is scientifica lly and usefully, significant. 5) Proponents of The Equivalence Principle believe that although light propagates in a straight line it can be deformed by the employment of this hypothesis . Spacetime is said to bend light but currently there is no indicatio n that anything other than straightforward mass does that.

64 6) The actual ' time - difference' results from efforts to measure gravitational time dilation by the flying of atomic clocks are arguably miniscule, requiring a physical exactitude of the timepiece t hat is perhaps yet to be accessible. The 'time - difference' conclusions are within the degrees of tolerance of the equipment. 7) Light's gravitational red and blue - shifts are also likely to affect a timepiece that employs electromagnetic waves or the decay time of elements, but they do not affect the performance of mechanical clocks. Therefore, the employment of atomic clocks in physics leads to some confusing results of crucial experiments where measurements record the fallibility of the apparatus rather th an any difference in 'proper' time. 8) The Pound Rebka experiment fails to recognise that in the Universe nothing is static, which denies them their claimed result. Although they declare that The Equivalence Principle is also proven by their work , any co mparison between gravity and acceleration is , in their case, immaterial. 9) Einstein / Minkowski's linking of innumerable 'falling' lifts requires a belief in 'free - fall' being a gravity - free zone, when any free - fall is caused by a gravitational influence. In the absence of a gravitational field objects either appear to 'float' or they continue to move at some initial speed. The Equivalence Principle enables proponents to say that free - fall is caused by the curved aspect of spacetime and that gravity too is a result of spacetime. This is actually admitting that , at the end of a semantic dialogue , free - fall is caused by gravity. 10) The notion of curved spacetime is, even in theory, misrepresented by an understanding that it would be a warped flat plane. The hypothesis fails to acknowledge that even an imaginary matrix would not be an undulating two dimensional plane, but an all - encompassing three dimensional mesh. Thus spacetime's simple bending of light, which is a corollary of its existence, would no longer be simply explained by a one dimensional curve of light, but by an unknowable multi - perverted route. 11) The Equivalence Principle, applied to time dilation in curved spacetime, makes unreasonable assumptions of the perspective of a distant observer, and ignores the possibility of millions of observers, to demonstrate its model. 12) Relativistic time dilation relies on a false premise. (see; http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Essays - Relativity%20Theory/Download/6227 13) The opposing and conflicting not ions of Gravitational and Relativistic time dilation collapse when their models are forced to interact, as each annihilate the effects of the other. 14) The Equivalence Principle, and its contribution to the theories on the bending of light, ignore probabl e atmospheric or cosmological influence.

END.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

"The Quantum Universe". Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. Penguin. "Why does E=Mc2". Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. Da Capo Press. "Relativity. A very short introduction." Russell Stannard. O xford University Press. "Atoms, Space time and other cool stuff". Alan Hall PhD. Pub; Alan Hall. "A Question of Time. The ultimate Paradox." Editors of Scientific American. "Quantum Physics and the ultimate reality". Michael Green. Amazon. "The speed of M ass. A new look at Relativity." Philip J Morgan. e - book edition. "The Particle at the end of the Universe." Sean Carroll. Oneworld Publications. "The Time Illusion." Dennis A Wright. e - book edition. "Space time, Dynamics of an isotropic non - linear elastic continuum." Robert K Masse. PhD. e - book edition. "Time theory. Characteristics of time, gravity and space". Charles Gerry. e - book edition. "The Particles of the Universe". Jeff Yee, Pub; Jeff Yee. "Hidden in Plain Sight , 3 ." Andrew Thomas. Pub; Andrew Tho mas. "Hidden in Plain Sight , 5 ." Andrew Thomas. Pub; Andrew Thomas. "Hidden in Plain Sight , 6 ." Andrew Thomas. Pub; Andrew Thomas. "Special relativity. One past but many futures." Pat Hackett. Pub; Pat Hackett. "Quantum. Einstein, Bohr and the great debate about the nature of Reality." Manjit Kumar. Icon Books, Allen and Unwin Pty. "Faster than the speed of light." Joao Magueijo. Arrow books. "Finite theory of the Universe." Phil Bouchard. Pub; Phil Bouchard. "Convergent Space." John - Paul Cleary. Pub; JP C. "The Laws of Thermodynamics". Peter Atkins. Oxford University Press. Hafele and Keating. Hyper Physics. "The Emperor's New Mind." Roger Penrose. "The Big Questions; Physics" Michael Brooks "Paradox" Jim Al - Khalili, Transworld Publishers. "A Brief Histo ry of Time" Stephen Hawkins. Bantam Books. "Black holes and Baby Universes." Stephen Hawkins. bantam Books. "Smashing Physics." Jon Butterworth. Headline Publishing Group.

66 "Zoom." Bob Berman. Oneworld Publications. "At the Edge of Uncertainty." Michael Bro oks. Profile Books. "Bad Science." Ben Goldacre. Forth Estate. " Relativity theory ." Gibbon Quantum mystery "Introducing Quantum Theory". J.P. McEvoy and Oscar Zarate. Icon books. "Quantum Physics, A Beginners Guide". Alastair I. M. Rae. Oneworld. "The Quan tum Universe". Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. Penguin. "Quantum Theory". John Polkinghorne. Oxford University Press. "If a tree falls in a forest". Craig Beck. Viral Success. "Quantum Physics for Dummies". Steven Hilzner. John Wiley. "Quantum theory cannot hu rt you". Marcus Chown, Faber and Faber. "Life on the Edge". Jim Al - Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden. "The Quantum Mystery". John Gribbin. "Spooky Action at a Distance". Goerge Musser. Scientific American. "The Road to Reality". Roger Penrose. Vintage. "The N ature of Space and Time". Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. Princetown. "Gravity." Brian Clegg. Duckworth. "Gravity from a New Angle", Karunakar Marasakatla.

http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Essays - Relativity%20Theory/Download/6227

http://gsjournal.net/Science - Journals/Essays - Cosmology/Download/6448