## Get More by Giving

When lending a helping hand goes a long way

## Fwd: Special Relativity – a geometric refutation

Dear Horst,

1. Obviously there is a length contraction in xi direction, when v is in direction of +xi, but there is a length expansion in negative xi direction at the same time. This should make a big difference in observation, when, in the moving system k, a length is measured in backward direction. Is ths true?

The major axis of the ellipsoid in k is greater than the minor axis thereof; the minor axis in turn is equal to the diameter of the sphere in K. Thus the diameter is elongated by the Lorentz Transformation.

2. The theory of relativity would be consistent, if tau in eqs. (6) and (7) were identical. Replacing c by c*q with an adjustable factor q … assume that the factor q is identical with the inverse of n in your calculation.

Since n > 1, 1/n < 1, in which case the parameterisation by n would be ruined. Lorentz Transformation does not permit transformation of K system-time t to a system-time for k.

Kind regards,
Steve

 Virus-free. www.avg.com

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:55 AM Horst Eckardt <mail> wrote:

Stephen,

this is an highly interesting article, maybe revolutionary. I have a question and a comment.

1. Obviously there is a length contraction in xi direction, when v is in direction of +xi, but there is a length expansion in negative xi direction at the same time. This should make a big difference in observation, when, in the moving system k, a length is measured in backward direction. Is ths true?

2. The theory of relativity would be consistent, if tau in eqs. (6) and (7) were identical. Replacing c by c*q with an adjustable factor q then gives:

and

Equating both expressions gives a quadratic equation for q with solutions:

or, when the sign of v is changed:

I assume that the factor q is identical with the inverse of n in your calculation. For q=v/c we obtain tau=0, but for q=v/(2c) I obtain a complex-valued tau.

Nevertheless there is an the interesting point. Myron Evans had shown in UFT papers 324/325 that the deflection of light by gravitation can simply be explained by a gamma factor of

gamma = 1/sqrt(1 – v^2/(2 c^2)).

This gives gamma=sqrt(2) for v –> c. Thus it is possible that a photon has a mass despite of travelling with speed of light. This result may point into the direction of you findings.

Horst

Am 03.11.2019 um 10:59 schrieb Steve Crothers:

Crothers, S.J., Special Relativity and the Lorentz Sphere, http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0013v1.pdf
ABSTRACT. The Special Theory of Relativity demands, by Einstein’s two postulates (i) the Principle of Relativity
and (ii) the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, that a spherical wave of light in one inertial system
transforms, via the Lorentz Transformation, into a spherical wave of light (the Lorentz sphere) in another inertial
system when the systems are in constant relative rectilinear motion. However, the Lorentz Transformation
in fact transforms a spherical wave of light into a translated ellipsoidal wave of light even though the speed of
light in vacuum is invariant. The Special Theory of Relativity is logically inconsistent and therefore invalid.

 Virus-free. www.avg.com

## Special Relativity – a geometric refutation

Stephen,

this is an highly interesting article, maybe revolutionary. I have a question and a comment.

1. Obviously there is a length contraction in xi direction, when v is in direction of +xi, but there is a length expansion in negative xi direction at the same time. This should make a big difference in observation, when, in the moving system k, a length is measured in backward direction. Is ths true?

2. The theory of relativity would be consistent, if tau in eqs. (6) and (7) were identical. Replacing c by c*q with an adjustable factor q then gives:

and

Equating both expressions gives a quadratic equation for q with solutions:

or, when the sign of v is changed:

I assume that the factor q is identical with the inverse of n in your calculation. For q=v/c we obtain tau=0, but for q=v/(2c) I obtain a complex-valued tau.

Nevertheless there is an the interesting point. Myron Evans had shown in UFT papers 324/325 that the deflection of light by gravitation can simply be explained by a gamma factor of

gamma = 1/sqrt(1 – v^2/(2 c^2)).

This gives gamma=sqrt(2) for v –> c. Thus it is possible that a photon has a mass despite of travelling with speed of light. This result may point into the direction of you findings.

Horst

Am 03.11.2019 um 10:59 schrieb Steve Crothers:

Crothers, S.J., Special Relativity and the Lorentz Sphere, http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0013v1.pdf
ABSTRACT. The Special Theory of Relativity demands, by Einstein’s two postulates (i) the Principle of Relativity
and (ii) the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, that a spherical wave of light in one inertial system
transforms, via the Lorentz Transformation, into a spherical wave of light (the Lorentz sphere) in another inertial
system when the systems are in constant relative rectilinear motion. However, the Lorentz Transformation
in fact transforms a spherical wave of light into a translated ellipsoidal wave of light even though the speed of
light in vacuum is invariant. The Special Theory of Relativity is logically inconsistent and therefore invalid.

 Virus-free. www.avg.com

## It’s Product and Engineering Month!

Special Events + New Speaker Announcements

## What is Startup Grind?

Global 2020 First Speaker Announcement! 🔥

 Over the years, we’ve heard people ask the same puzzled question when they hear the words Startup Grind. “But what is it? What do you do?” So, we thought we’d take it back to the basics. Startup Grind is the world’s largest community of startups, founders, innovators, and creators. We host a lot of events, but more than that Startup Grind is a community. We bring like-minded yet diverse individuals together to connect, learn, teach, help, build, and belong. We do this daily through our local events, flagship conferences, startup program, and online media + content – collectively reaching over 3.5 million individuals worldwide.
 “The first thing I ever did when I got to Silicon Valley was go to a Startup Grind.” — Austen Allred, Founder, Lambda School
 Make Friends. Give First. Help Others. ●

## Sailing On!

Dear Horst,

It is great to see such important progress being made!

As the theory is simplified, it becomes more accessable and compelling and will gain ever greater acceptance!

Advances in the computer coding, gives an objective dimension to ECE theory, Myron’s assertation that doubters cannot argue with correct Cartan geometry as verified by computer, becomes ever more timely.

The aias ship sales on.

Well done Horst!

Up the revolution!

Best wishes

Kerry

On Thursday, 15 August 2019, Horst Eckardt <mail> wrote:

Also for the blog.

I finished the basic calculations of paper 439. When putting all parts of Cartan geometry together, we obtain a calculation scheme starting from a potential and ending in electric and magnetic fields of a given physical problem. That is within a framework of general relativity, therefore a novel approach. This is a great progress in ECE theory. Such a complete path had not been carried out before. One reason was that we had not compiled the Cartan formulas in this way so that (at least I myself) did not see that it is possible so straightforwardly. I had looked for this method for years 🙂
Another reason is that the Gamma connections can only be computed by computer algebra, and there is the ambiguity of how to choose the appearing constants. Setting them to zero gave an astonishing success in most cases I investigated.
(There remain some problems for complicated potentials. This has to be investigated further and is not addressed in the paper).

One result of the paper is that the B(3) field comes out for e-m waves in a quite natural way. It is lastly a consequence of the fact that the tetrad has to be a non-singular matrix in 4 dimensions. Myron would be delighted 🙂
There remains the problem that the Lambda spin connection is not antisymmetric. Either there is still an error in the calculations, or it has to do with the charge density. For e-m waves, which correspond to the e-m free field, all connections are antisymmetric. I will have to discuss this point with Doug Lindstrom later on.

I separated the Maxima code in a way that a library for all operations of Cartan geometry needed has been built. This should also be usable for the text book. In addition, this seems to be the begin of a generally usable code which Sean MacLachlan requested a long time ago.

I think we make progress in theory now. I appended the draft version of paper 439. The conclusion is still missing. I will give a perspective for the next papers where the new code path through Cartan geometry could be modified for solving new questions. For example,
1) when the e-m fields are given, what are the connections, and what is the potential (or tetrad)?
2) how can a resonant spin connection be obtained from a given e-m field?

I will be on a holiday trip until Monday.

Horst

## Draft of Paper 439

Also for the blog.

I finished the basic calculations of paper 439. When putting all parts of Cartan geometry together, we obtain a calculation scheme starting from a potential and ending in electric and magnetic fields of a given physical problem. That is within a framework of general relativity, therefore a novel approach. This is a great progress in ECE theory. Such a complete path had not been carried out before. One reason was that we had not compiled the Cartan formulas in this way so that (at least I myself) did not see that it is possible so straightforwardly. I had looked for this method for years 🙂
Another reason is that the Gamma connections can only be computed by computer algebra, and there is the ambiguity of how to choose the appearing constants. Setting them to zero gave an astonishing success in most cases I investigated.
(There remain some problems for complicated potentials. This has to be investigated further and is not addressed in the paper).

One result of the paper is that the B(3) field comes out for e-m waves in a quite natural way. It is lastly a consequence of the fact that the tetrad has to be a non-singular matrix in 4 dimensions. Myron would be delighted 🙂
There remains the problem that the Lambda spin connection is not antisymmetric. Either there is still an error in the calculations, or it has to do with the charge density. For e-m waves, which correspond to the e-m free field, all connections are antisymmetric. I will have to discuss this point with Doug Lindstrom later on.

I separated the Maxima code in a way that a library for all operations of Cartan geometry needed has been built. This should also be usable for the text book. In addition, this seems to be the begin of a generally usable code which Sean MacLachlan requested a long time ago.

I think we make progress in theory now. I appended the draft version of paper 439. The conclusion is still missing. I will give a perspective for the next papers where the new code path through Cartan geometry could be modified for solving new questions. For example,
1) when the e-m fields are given, what are the connections, and what is the potential (or tetrad)? 2) how can a resonant spin connection be obtained from a given e-m field?