Space-Time-and-Light Relativity [*]

A. Einstein's Relativity double-integrated zero-differential acceleration front-end-to-back of a lightspeed-capable train and accumulated nonzero-differential distance, but this does not work in mathematics---and even worse his original event-interferometry-clock was trippy acausal continually breaking while accelerating---and certifiable---(modernly ignored)...

[See also ppt-videos "no simultaneity for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity," also The Faraday-Maxwell Tease (trailer) centuries-old transformer equivalence paradox and 'extras', and unlisted priors, Correcting Einstein: The Other End Is Running Late (trailer) and the Einstein-Minkowski Acausality Paradox (trailer)]

[See also articles linear stellar aberration, and angular stellar aberration, and also, harmonic magnetism]

FOREWORD: [April 20th 2017 plus]

Einstein's original(?) diagram of a photon clock consisting of a pair of photons emitted perpendicularly and returning at the same instant (because the remeeting-event occurrence exists in both frames), is-or-was incorrect arithmetic: in particular the outrigger distance is-or-was incorrectly measured only-forward, whereas the in-line distance is-or-was measured correcting for the asymmetry of moving-measures... the remedy is to use the proportion from the in-line distance-and-length by applying it also to the outrigger distance (not a length of anything)... The result is still-again an approximation instead of a true mathematical analysis (SEE Linear Stellar Aberration, for the proper analysis of acceleration)...

Further problems with Einstein's diagram included its asymmetry of forward-vs-backward travel implicating not just temporal dilation but distortion of dwell-time (which I used for a screenplay moment in my “StarTrails Game” 2000, as to whether fast interplanetary speed might electrochemically alter familiar food flavors)... Furthermore, his ‘passing station clocks’ grid-time-bias resulted in grid-distance-bias two-gammas (γ2) shorter, contraction—so his "contraction" was actually expansion, from double-contraction...

Also, Einstein proclaimed 'no-preferred-reference-frame' where Newtonian analysis (had Newton analyzed it) reveals that if an observer were at the middle of a train, then, when the train starts, the other ends appear to start late, so the front appears nearer and the rear farther e.g. time-synchronized photons from the front and rear in the train's-own frame will-not-meet at the center, plus its differences grow while the train continues to accelerate, and the compounded shrinkage is retained even when it resumes 'inertial mode' (no-longer accelerating)... Early analysis had allowed for natural-shrinkage of atomic distances and whence objects' lengths compensated where time-is-distance, but if the speed of light were fixed in the accelerated, frame, it could no-longer/never-again be symmetric... i.e. there is, a preferred, frame reference....


On page 26 of RELATIVITY, 1962 USA-only edition, Einstein presumes his train can get up to near-light-speed without its adverse effects on his measurement theory. But if we consider a train starting from standstill, from a point midway ordered Go, and follow that progress, we find a disabused result: the back end sees the front end start late by a tiny fraction of a second, because of the distance the view-light photons must take from front to back, and, conversely, the front sees the back start late by the same. The same difference also appears in the velocity: each end sees the other end starting and remaining late in its velocity profile: each is seeing the other move more slowly, while acceleration remains, continually, unterminating, and the differential velocity accumulates: the front sees the back recede and-yet the back sees itself gain on the front... and the roundtrip averages account for even-order time dilation when we apply the same ersatz reasoning to each atomic electron i.e. everything seems late in forward and rearward views as photon-bouncing clocks run more slowly... even the other ends of straightedge rulers measuring the frame....

Facts in-favor of Einsteinian relativity were also facts-against: that, motion-perpendicular photon aberration must occur on the speeding experiment frame viewed in the reference frame, suggesting non-aether equations of motion, But, it could never get there by acceleration, because crossing photons would slip out the back end, or, if an Einstein clock were closed-up by extending the mirrors, crossing photons would eventually strike the rear mirror and orthogonality would be lost—by both that practical-conversion and, by angles the crossing photon would only partially lean forward shy by lightspeed effects, (Modern college physics textbooks install a low-duty-cycle-pulse-repeater to avoid 'thinking' about the adversity of integrating the cross-photon-slippage-or-loss-of-orthogonality)... Another Einsteinian presumption was his equational absence of the spatial-aether as-if charge-space-time existed substantially self-extant in absolute-perfect-vacuousness (nonextancy) with its nothingness having absolute-perfect-mathematical-measurability (a standardness of something-else-ness), and, as the only substance of those properties, that they should charge-space-time-interact so as to itinerate all developments while themselves inextricably fixed to his vacuously-extant-mathematical-measure-nowhere-explained... and then it got even stranger when he claimed its nothingness could expand and contract on its mathematical basis or conversely its mathematical basis expand and contract leaving its vacuum in-situ (sic 'doublespeak') for-which it had no establishable fixity, connection, registration...

(Things got even-stranger when he worked-up his General Relativity without reasonable knowledge of where, mass-and-energy are, although he was known to have stated that 'particles are extended in space' he placed no mass-energy there, or anywhere, and generations of his students would never know whether a mass-hole aka 'black hole' had all its mass inside, or not, or, in-other-words, gravity wasn't, strictly, 1/r2, yet none of his subsequent teachers-of-next-generation-students ever relayed what that envelope-function was, meanwhile 4th-graders knew that Einstein's singularity was-not mass-energy-conservative, and even outside his singularities, potential energy if-located-in-test-particle-situ would've totaled infinite for any mass at all...)

How could this have come-to-pass in physics:—simply, physics is experimental art and otherwise presumptuous using mathematics to calculate its 'landings' but-not-how-to-get-there... Einstein was searching for energy, when he did his original light-beam postulations, (cf his prominent photoelectric effect theory i.e. atomic energy quantization), but inertial equivalence, guessed-at by Galileo et al, was never proved nor proven except at zero-velocity and 'immeasurably' small at Newtonian subsonic indeed-'sub-pony-express' velocities (and he reputedly never traveled, not that he should have seen it), and neither he nor his adherents for the next four centuries ever developed his arithmetic (else would all have found the time-space coordinational distortion we'll examine later, and risked a renewal of holy-Inquisitions, upon himself and posthumously Galileo)... Minkowski the mathematician merely extrapolated-back from Einstein's results to something like Maxwell's results (Lorentz contractions) and all cheered their grandiose-unification theories tossing-away-infinities and leaving the dust under a trippy carpet—for us...

Let us presume rather the ab-sense of Einstein's theory of absolute-vacuum-mensurability, Let us carry forward his ersatz Gedanken [mind-thought] experiments from a more mathematically concise expectation, and finish what Einstein merely started and dabbled-in and got-taken-over by wooden-stick-theoretical relativity...


Assume a place in the universe where the speed of light is a constant in all directions—which seems ordinary enough because the universe seems stable and somewhere should be large enough to run kilometer lightspeed measurement experiments a few microseconds...

Assume an experiment consisting of three pieces aligned on a perpendicular grid with its system-motion so that one piece sends and receives photons to the other two; At standstill the length and width are equal, L = W, and photons take the same time to return... in practical experiment this would be an event-interferometer 'clock' of photon-exact identical length and width (*)—the two ways being commensurate, even as the passing relative agrees that events are 'events' (hence an event is a logical tensor invariant)...

* (But not necessarily the Michelson-Morley setup as assumed very-long photon-trains of end-to-end-coherence from a thermal source, constant train-loading from a thermal source, only-later an ultrafine-tuned CW laser source, dispersional-phase coherence of parallel-photons-not-entirely-a-wavefront, constant beam-splitting-balance-and-wavefront-refill-without-angular-dispersion for switched-out-missing-photons, and, no load-switching nor mirror-repolarization at beam-splitters, no nonlinear-interferometric auto-modulation at the silvered mirror, no natural-'re-lasing' by glass-mediums, no evanescent waves nor overlap-standing-wave-frequency-lockup, no perpendicular-velocity-swamping by cosmic-relative motion, no explanation that it was ever pre-compensated for mirror-in-motion-tilting as would affect spatial patterns, not temporal,—nor in government documents,—etc.... Spatial phase coherence produces a grid-pattern of nulls at 0.71-wavelength on the silver surface by the interference of source and returned beams that in-canceling prevent polarization-phase-inversion and results in closely-spaced auto-modulation flipping photons even 'randomlike' between nulled-standing-peaks and incident-nulls; and even creates perpendicular grid-bridge-photons ... It is usually depicted with a slit lacking vertical coherency, rather than a point source... It was not, a properly imagined experiment.... Note, there should be further question of electromagnetic phase rotation at the mirror surface in motion—not unlike the phase-flip-or-not depending on silvering-conductance... Note too that 'perpendicular-velocity-swamping by cosmic-relative motion' is twice a concern to their experiment, because, that was the very 'thing' they were trying to determine by measure but then assumed the only detectable motion was inline with either 2D-experiment leg, —which seems innocuous to assume and underestimated-to-boot when contrarily it was quite-expectably-certain that our Earth, Solar System, Local Group, galaxy, galactic cluster, cosmic-attractor-region is, traveling a significant portion of even 'half' the speed of light from the nominal 'center' of the cosmos, and, a small sine portion is all that's needed to 'swamp' the vector-addition into a perpendicular,-sum... They and-successors could even have missed it by not checking all the possible 3D, sky, in particular the polar regions detectable from the equator were neglected or not broadly reported... Or, they dropped singular 'momentary' positive detections as nonrecurring 'glitches' within the region they did,-test, as the Earth turned...)

And we assume the experiment packages accelerate uniformly, all pieces, so that no reshaping occurs in any frame 'real' or 'relative'—objects remain everywhere 'normal'—that may be an awful lot to ask, but Einstein assumed-so, apparently, by his own published original depiction, and we're going to find the correction to his assumptions, that illumines, inspires, and reassures, the correct process and results, and even explains and makes-room-for his results... (rather than start from 'scratch' getting every step correct from the beginning which is the hallmark of mathematics rather than wading through heaps of smelly approximations)...


(a finely logical and arithmetical comparison)

A presentation outline: (2017-18)

FOREWORD: We are not-firstly concerned with the higher order terms in the ½mv2 energy formula of Newtonian motion vs. Einsteinian relativity, but rather with Newtonian analysis of Einstein’s gedanken, (also note that we skip Galileo who supposed relativity and a finite speed of light but without proof):

ABSTRACT: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has troubled students more than a century, Scholars repute only three people in the world understood it, (‘punchline: Who’s third’)… We can find, the trouble, We can fix, the trouble, Or, we can start afresh, correctly, from Newton’s mathematical principle-set…

TEASER: Suppose Einstein detects a 10 m lance traveling at 60% lightspeed as it arrives at ground zero and his second detector marks its other end as 8 m, but,—just then his first detector jumps into the lance inertial frame and measures its full 10 m length but the second detector 6.4 m behind: Did the other end get marked or-not-yet… maybe ‘relativistic effects’ are traveler-local with far-distances remaining far ‘til their distance and time contractions and biasing effects arrive, roundtrip, at the speed of light; Einstein’s gedanken-clock effects calculated only after, photons, had gone, roundtrip, so maybe his theory doesn’t even apply, ‘til they do—(even isotropically, round, even incrementally a roundtrip-equivalent, especially for accelerated-re-arrangers ever-‘refreshing’ their roundtrips)….


►The speed of light is finite,
►(Galileo and others had supposed so; Newton and Einstein knew so by measured values):
►Newton recognized Rømer’s estimate we know as ⅔ c in timing the orbits of Jupiter’s moons,
►Einstein had Foucault’s 10 ppm estimate by the deflection of photons off a spinning mirror
►(n.b. Michelson’s estimate was 20-50× coarser than Foucault’s);

►The speed of light is singular and constant,
►Newton saw the speed of light was one-and-the-same for all colors visible—
►his new reflector telescope corrected Galileo’s prismatic glass refractor color ‘rainbowing’
►and showed no white-smear nor edge-color aberration on the bright heads of passing comets
►(cf 10−4 c magnified by his scope factor of 40× is 14 arcmin. ≈ 14× common ocular acuity),
►But he did-not know whether it was fixed by the speed of emission, or the speed of space itself,
►Modern experiments confirm the speed is the same for all electromagnetic waves ELF to γ-rays—
►and that it’s by their speed in space itself, (and for particles too, protons, electrons, neutrinos),
►Einstein had Michelson-Morley’s interferometry-null for white-light-speed in a traveling frame,
►(n.b. the Michelson-Morley experiment is unknown for directions within 34° of Earth’s axis),
►(n.b.#2. the Michelson-Morley experiment has since been refined by 108×, e.g. Schiller et al);

►We too have all-this so we can ‘boldly’ upgrade Newton’s Principia on his behalf—

►Q. Is the speed of light the same constant in all directions,
►If faster in some direction, atoms and waves should be elongated-so
►and measurement rulers should thus be—equally—elongated so,
►and the speed of light should therefor be perceived-as isotropic, so—
►Light-time is light-distance;

►Q. Is the speed of light the same constant in all directions for travelers,
►Or is there a preferred direction such as inline traversal or quadrature transversal (perpendicular),
‘Well’ firstly, to get to any, speed, you accelerate,—and this is where Einstein and Newton differed:
►Einstein skipped his acceleration step and assumed multiple ‘inertial’ frames without first accelerating
►(Einstein did-not-compute the A-student analytical mathematical sense that made Newton famous),
►So, Newton’s mathematical principled ‘walking path’ may sleuth for us where Einstein did-go, or-not,
►Or…maybe-not-at-all if atoms and waves are elongated-so in all, roundtrip-faster-directions, of travel,
►(experiments constructed of distorted-atoms might-be equally-distorted, cf Lorentz Contraction);

►Einstein’s preference was for an analytical physics sense that photons have a width-structure,
►that is—(as must be)—preserved when photons appear carried-along broadsideways-relative,
►(only a reference point travels a tilted line on a photon in broadside lockstep with its emitter),
►beginning earlier at the rear and propagating forward across the wavefront to be later-moving,
►to avoid a Huygens’ contradiction (that a photon wave travels perpendicular to its wavefront),
►Thus Einstein, who believed photons were wave-spaces, pre-expected a loss-of-simultaneity
►(for anything with self-entangled structure such as, an energy-wave-like-particle ‘wavicle’),
►but this meant photon-spaces would be deformed, shingled stacks, in the traveler’s ‘inertial’ frame,
►(and under acceleration photons would become individually ‘chirped’, bent, dispersive-angled),
►Yet, photons do-have long cohesive wavepacket envelope structure, else they’d violate deBroglie,
►(so maybe photons instead have circular ‘footprints’ of equilateral transversal-wave structure);

►(But note that broadside may distribute photon-wavelengths over thousands, of atomic-widths),
►(so a traveler’s photons passing through glass in the other frame are refracted broadsideways),
►(but how would photon-absorption, be restricted to atoms in the path of the photon lead-point),
►(because otherwise, broadsideways photons could be multiply, absorbed, at lower-energies-per),
►(Einstein’s theory of relativity isn’t explaining much—just corroborating with his assumptions);

ANALYSIS: getting a ‘contained photon’ up to speed:

►There are two ways to observe events: Remotely-far-and-synchronized, and, Up-close-and-immediate,
►(the third way is the way Einstein did it—conjecturally relative anywhere by-single-observer);
►Plus, for Newton there exists a Reference Frame, fully-self-synchronized for comparison sake,
►non-moving and never accelerated—a ‘preferred’ frame, (a test frame is accelerated, moving, etc.),
►We will watch how-and-where acceleration affects the mover vs (not) the remainer—

►Under acceleration that is constant, transversal photons ‘fall back’ to the rear, inline, mirror,
►and rebound somewhat forward—reaching unto as far forward as their points of origin again,
►Orthogonality (and orthonormality)—is lost (and scattered, see note), and,
►some transversal photons cross faster than others (fastest mid-orthogonal, slower ‘zigzag’ steeply),
►so the traveler’s clock is messed-up,
►And, the traveler knows it,
►And when acceleration quits to coast, all-but-one transversal photons reach the front mirror,
►faster or slower depending on where they were at that instant of regime-transition-to-coast,
►The traveler’s photon clock orthogonality remains lost, totally messed-up, permanently ‘broken’
►(meanwhile the preferred, unaccelerated frame remains unaffected, never breaking its clocks),
►Furthermore, velocity-and-position-changes, even if returned to zero, cumulate an average ‘wear’
►retaining a traveler-clock-mess ‘cryptic summary’ of the position-velocity-acceleration histories,
►n.b. all things in the accelerated frame are affected, messed-up, particles, waves, photon-generators,
►but then, wavicle cohesiveness, nonlinearity, quantumscale interference, diffuse, the traveler’s mess
►(cf electron colliders ‘see’ infinitesimal points of finite energy intrinsically stable under messing);

(n.b. a general Einstein-photon-clock would be 3D spherical/2D circular, with similar scattering),
(n.b.#2. photon trajectories curving from the center to the rim are longer than observed straights),
(n.b.#2.b. and, their angles-of-incidence deflect them a longer way around, the clock center point),
(n.b.#3. and yet Einstein did-not account for time slowing and scattering in his special, relativity);

►But, by that acceleration, transversal photons do-not-return to their full, original forward position,
►because—the same photons are also partially chasing-forward their traveler-clock-system velocity,
►and so near-orthogonal photons lose ‘ground’ aft the original position, the faster the clock travels,
►and yet, the traveler might-not-notice this shortage if its atomic-structure-length contracts equally,
►and…this is Einstein’s frame-contraction, but, only by half, as it occurs only, during, acceleration,
►and the unaccelerated preferred, frame ‘half’ never has this shrinkage by others merely looking-on:
►for, if it did, or if its photons were seen to bend over, they’d be ‘falling’ toward their, clock-rear…

(Note that transversal photons act as having rest-mass under acceleration—‘falling’ rearward, and bouncing against the mirror rear increasing overall Doppler shift; yet which being pure energy might ‘fry’ the system by ‘internal-light-barrier’—an exception that does-not-occur with ordinary gravity—
►but, more-massive atoms have more-massive electrons in lower-orbitals absorbing the energy fry,
►and, photons traveling forward when acceleration occurs, are deenergized rather than energized,
►but on-the-average more photons are chasing forward than rearward, so average mass increases,
►but, also, photon momentum-energies are ‘double-deposited’ upon bouncing against each mirror,
►and that-momentum-force, would spread the mirrors apart, but for their mechanical attachments,
►n.b. the mere fact that we can devise, desynchronizing-accelerations, means it’s not, ‘real’, time);

►Such details complicate the photon-energy-equations by more component diffusion—(tbd)…

(Subnote that Einstein’s photon clock was a system with external secular motion independent of all internal photon motions; its effective-speed-of-light-within ceff therefor reduced by ceff2+v2 = c2 where the ordinary-speed-of-light c is the usual limit ergo ceff = c√(1−vc2) which implicates time dilation or length contraction and may have inspired such theories of Larmor, Lorentz, FitzGerald, Poincaré.)

►So, there is, no, inertial-frame-equivalence (unless coefficient-adjustments ‘throw-a-rug-over-it’),
►whereas not-only-Galileo had long-supposed motion was relative, as was ‘obvious’ at low, speeds,
►There is, no, ‘Special’ Einstein solution to relativity (without that ‘inertial frame equivalence’)—
►You can’t get there from here, without, acceleration, and acceleration breaks it,
►Unless there’s a correction-process to recover it, or some sub-solution, there is, no, ‘inertial frame’,
►Nevertheless, Einstein, assumed, ‘Fuzz—it all goes inertial, again—all, by itself…’
►Meanwhile, Newton’s mathematical principled-steps do-not-support such fuzzy fuzzied assumptions,
►Newton ‘walks unhurried’ where Einstein ‘rode like a madmouse’ (hard-acceleration rollercoaster);

(N.B. Modern physics—textbooks—assume each clock-photon is disposable ‘use-once-and-discard’ without tracking displacement—a ‘fresh’ clock-photon is emitted replacing it,—but we find the entire clocking system and all its component photons and atomic-orbital E-M waves remain ‘whacked-out’);

ANALYSIS: the traversal ‘frictionless cart’ photon:

►A traveling photon clock adjusts photon wavelengths, inline shorter forward and longer rearward:
►At velocity vc (relative to light speed c=1) inline-traversal-photons bounce against the rear mirror
►compressing wavelength 1/(1+vc) by its approach against the photons, (note, −vc decompresses),
►and deexpanding wavelength (1−vc) as it recedes while chasing the photons, (note, −vc expands),
►for total compression (1−vc)/(1+vc) retained for forward-travel time duration extended by 1/(1−vc),
►and, bounce-back against the front, with total decompression—inversely, (1+vc)/(1−vc) (as c=−1),
►and that retained for rearward-travel time duration foreshortened, by 1/(1+vc), roundtrip 2/(1vc2),
►for roundtrip-compounded compression-decompression resuming its initial value =1 per photon,
►and, photon momentum which-is-energy and-force, imparted on both mirrors, is balanced equal,
►(the same photons each bounce each end mirror equally—deemed elastically—while coasting),
►(bouncewise (1)(1+vc) ⩲ ((1+vc)/(1−vc))·(1−vc) = ((1+vc)/(1−vc))·(1−vc) ⩲ (1)(1+vc) = 2(1+vc)),
►(but even then reflectance-field electrons should be expected to have a slight-impedance delay);

(Note thus traversal photons too exhibit mass reactance and energy gain by acceleration),
►(Note photon-wavetrain-length is also part of the calculation of ‘total light’ duration, and
►Inline-photon-travel-time ‘total light’ duration-ratio (1+vc)/(1−vc) is a ‘headlight effect’);

ANALYSIS: ‘special’ inertial speed:

►Einstein’s photon clock quadrature-photon travel length was incorrectly set up or calculated:
►inline-photon travel between emitter (aft) and forward mirror (fore) was measured roundtrip,
►(forward-and-backward, the average is the inline ‘mechanical’ length),
►quadrature-photon travel between emitter and outrigger mirror was also, measured roundtrip,
►(outward-and-inward, the average is the quadrature, mechanical, width)
►but the quadrature-photon travel vector viewed relatively, has also a component of inline length:
►that is, length, not-frame-travel distance, but actual, photon-motion, to-be-measured-roundtrip,
►but was instead measured twice,-forward, without, consideration for its backward,-return-path
►(in calculating the average-hypotenuse-length of photon travel by Pythagorean components),
►The length of objects and in-particular-here photon travel, is-not an objective-frame-velocity distance,
►Inline, length, is measured as the roundtrip, average, of here-to-there-forward, and-there-back-to-here,
►His outrigger mirror travel to meet its quadrature photon was measured distance but he needed length,
►(this may be fixed simply by ratiocinating with its inline-photon proportion shorter by 1/(1+vc)),
►(else we could measure it by a separate emitter and mirror, even at a separate time and place),
►(but maybe-not because photon travel is-not free-speed-relative with perpendicular components);

ANALYSIS: ‘effective’ time and distance:

►Relativity does-not change the time passing by any window, though every clock outside turns slowly,
►therefor outside grid-time is biased tbias = vc dgrid/c compensating for its slow-turning clock gear-times:
►this time-bias is added relative to the fully-self-synchronized-grid-frame time right-outside a window,
►observed length contraction d = dgrid/γ, time dilation t = γtgear and therefor its clock-tripping t = tgrid/γ,
►(n.b. by clock-tripping Special Relativity has two timing-externalities: faster tgrid and slower tgear),
►(consistent with Einstein’s full reciprocity v = d/t = (dgrid/γ)/(tgrid/γ) = dgrid/tgrid = vgrid = vlookingback),
►(relative velocity, horizontally oncoming, passing, offgoing, common vertical ‘up’ but no gravity),
►(cf his 3-point “Twins [non]Paradox” grid-time and-distance contracted equally for the traveler),
►(notice if they each run his full paradox they each arrive younger sooner, the other younger later),
►(but also, if each stops instantaneously upon arrival the other instantaneously catches up its time),
►(which in trans-context, means far distant places accelerate—without force—to FTL—to catch up),
►and as tgrid = γt = γ2 tgear needs compensation, tbias = tgrid−tgear = (tgrid= dgrid/v)·(1−γ−2= v2/c2) = vc dgrid/c,
►therefor, in the traveler’s vantage, oncoming clocks will be relatively closer, by dbias = v tbias = dgrid vc2,
►so that in traveler-view equations, deff = dgrid−dbias = dgrid2 = d/γ (super contracted), tbias = γ2 vc deff/c,
►(that’s reciprocal for the meaning of ‘effective velocity’ veff = deff/teff = (dgrid2)/((dgrid/v)−tbias) = v);

(N.B. acceleration was no part of Einstein’s calculations, as soon as ‘inertial frames’ took-over),
(however, changes in velocity meant instantaneously different inertial frames instant-by-instant),
(Sidebar: there is no FTL time-travel as oncoming clocks would advance while turning backward
►from their time-bias even greater—BUT—with dbias>dgrid FTL-clocks should arrive from behind);

(Note that photons are deemed gridless, bearing only the timestamp ‘image’ of their interactions),
(but subnote that photons can theoretically bear multiple-timestamp-images of their interactions),
(also note photon γ = ∞ so its finite length must be infinite in its own frame if it has a real frame),
(subnote the sublime impossibility, Einstein couldn’t ride a zero-energy photon of infinite length),
(sub-subnote that a photon of any length would see the universe zero-length but containing, itself),
(sub-sub-subnote that physicists correct this as geodesic-acceleration-distortion-per-perspective);

►So Einstein’s calculable, effective, contracted, relative distance is shorter than his measured, observed,
►maybe-ill-defined-contracted remediable by γ-expansion, distance γ2-contracted by distance-time-bias,
►so that in traveler view equations, d = γ(deff=dgrid−dbias) = dgrid/γ (same Einstein contraction equation),
►(n.b. it would appear that Einstein simply skipped identification of foreshortening, as contraction),
►(We’re still expecting ultimately to consider Newtonian one-sided acceleration contraction effects);

(Note that holding Einstein’s time-bias constant, clock gear-time is continuous, slower and linear),
(yet, updating time-bias by his inertial triangle-ratiocination is relative to grid-time and so equal);

ANALYSIS: ‘insider’ clock-time:

►Photons (inline only) in the grid-frame, arrive one-way at the clock-mirror Lgrid fore or aft at Lgrid/c,
►meanwhile his traveler observes tbias = ±vc Lgrid/c, Leff = Lgrid2, arriving, t = L/(c±v) = Lgrid/γc(1±vc),
►meanwhile likewise, his traveler observes effective, arriving, teff = Leff/c(1±vc) = Lgrid2c(1±vc) = t/γ;


►Photons travel equally-around a wheel, forward and rearward, and meet again at their starting point,
►But also equally for an observer for whom the wheel is spinning, to meet again at that starting point,
►But, that common starting point has moved and yet all photon meeting events must be the same one,
►while cumulatively discounting wheel rotation one photon revolution, returning to its original angle,
►Moreover for consecutive slow rim clocks time bias must continually climb and thus be multivalued,
►but yet again Einstein would have the far side of its wheel at opposite velocity subtracting-back bias,
►and Mach’s preferred rotation frame may not help this time if both observers are rotating oppositely;

►(note of course atomic structures in the grid frame have such time bias by incremental summation);

ANALYSIS: ‘third-party’ racer, velocity:

►Any object racing inline at velocity v3:grid travels d3:grid arriving at t3:grid = d3:grid/v3:grid in the grid frame,
►but Einstein’s traveler observes tbias:3 = vc(dgrid:3= d3:grid−vtgrid:3)/c, and solves it as = t3:grid − tgrid:3 for t3,
►solving... vc(v3:grid t3:grid−vtgrid:3)/c = t3:grid − tgrid:3 ⇒ tgrid:3 = γ2 t3:grid(1−vcv3:grid:c) = γt3, where γd3 = dgrid:3,
►so v3 = d3/t3, Einstein’s compound relativistic velocity formula, v3:c = (v3:grid:c−vgrid:c)/(1−v3:grid:c·vgrid:c),

ANALYSIS: Einstein’s ‘four-point acausality’ ultra-paradox (aka the Students’ Predating Paradox):

►Assuming the traveler’s own inertial frame can be fully self-synchronized locally, as well as the grid,
►(Einstein’s other assumptions such as v=vlookingback are still unproven, so this analysis is shallow),
►allowing Einstein’s roundtrip-distance its symmetry, apart from the asymmetry of directional, length,
►For a pair of co-traveling observers the Earth frame is contracted including grid-space between them,
►and we should suppose the time bias explains it—but—the lead traveler observes the same grid time:
►because both had started and accelerated together (likewise the grid observes both traveler-clocks),
►(this is beginning to lean hard on the pure-Newtonian approach so we’ll go lightly from here on),
►and the remedy now appears to be to measure contractions per-perspective by geodesic-acceleration,
►(except that geodesic-acceleration contracting the oncoming, biases its far-end to arrive earlier),
►(which means it accelerated faster, and far-far-away momentarily FTL... it’s the same troubles)—
►so the new next remedy is to declare contraction parallactical not by velocity but by its acceleration,
►(gear time and grid time were real to Einstein but bias was parallactic or maybe none were real),
►(n.b. his decades-ago in-vacuum parallax-by-velocity didn’t falsify point-events’ place-and-time);

►(It is still specious that velocity parallactically advances and retards the time-now in any passing inertial frame ahead or behind, and differently for objects in the very same place—as though it controlled its future and past but no locally real clock, jumps its own reality—and too, paradoxes for light where Tbias(photon) = D/c (±) as the light, that has no time, travels rearward into its past...)

►Carefully—this is the per-perspective, geodesic-acceleration-distortion, foreshortening, observation:
►An oncoming pole is foreshortened and so fits inside a barn, as observed at the barn-back-end door,
►But it is also so-observed to fit inside at the barn-front-end door at the same time on the barn clock,
►(that is, for a pole that at standstill, is the exact same length as the barn, front-end-to-back-end),
►but the means for deciding pole-contraction was by comparing measurements of the observer frame,
►so the pole does-not-foreshorten end-to-end inside a synchronized barn, (a longer pole hangs out),
►which leaves Einstein’s geodesic, per-perspective (baby is relative at the point-of-birth), unusable,
►and we’ll have to resort to the fully self-synchronized inertial frame version of Einstein’s theorizing,
►which was Minkowski’s synchronized inertial frame (wooden-stick-relativity) version of Einstein’s,
►Einstein did not consider (within undergraduate studies) the possibility of linear stellar aberration:

►But, even frame-contraction, has the same problems—the other barn-door sees a different time-bias:
►the coincidence of the foreshortened/aftshortened-pole inside the barn doesn’t happen in barn-time,
►and picking wrong-time versus wrong-distance was vain ‘choice between two evils’ of one equation,
►Einstein’s special theory of relativity is no better than a calculatory computation of his assumptions;

TRAPDOOR! (Einstein’s ‘four-point acausality’ ultra-paradox aka the Students’ Predating Paradox)

►‘On the assumption of synchronicity for the traveler and an assistant, and a reference photon’—
►A photon clock of length Lgrid releases a photon inline at the instant the traveler passes at its front, 0grid,
►The photon races Lgrid/c = tgrid to the mirror in the grid frame and, ttra = Lgrid/γ(c+v) in the traveler frame,
►Meanwhile the traveler’s assistant on-the-spot cttra also waits ttra = (tgrid − tbias):tra/γ for the photon arrival,
►(being fully traveler-sync’ed simultaneously seeing the same 0tra = 0grid, Ltra = Lgrid/γ, c = c, ttra = ttra),
►And—at ttra the traveler informs the passing grid-stationmaster, ‘My Assistant, has seen, the Photon…!’
►And—the grid-stationmaster rechecks local grid-time, γttra ≪ tgrid, and logs, ‘Daft physicists in caboose!’

►So ‘what’s wrong with this picture’ (correctly calculated for the assumptions, including synchronicity),
►Einstein’s traveler, has predated a presumed photon arrival event right-outside-the-assistant’s,-window…
►(Notice that the traveler is-not-reporting the assistant’s photographic evidence, just expected results),
►(but, of-course, the assistant traveler is merely an Einsteinian-Gedankenexperiment ‘thought-avatar’),
►(a stooge to be at the spot to observe what is ‘rationally’ known about the photon’s arrival at ttra:tgrid);

►Notice also, like his Twins Paradox, this experiment is conducted, in one-frame, and observed in another,
►But this time we’re not-just dealing in Einstein’s equational, work, but the reality of causality-structuring,
►The grid-stationmaster’s frame is fully self-synchronized too, and causal: its-own photon has-not-arrived,
►Einstein had merely sought to separate velocity from acceleration and managed a ‘linear’-transformation,
►But this time we’re not-just dealing in Einstein’s equational work, but the reality of boundary-conditions;

►But—the grid-stationmaster’s timestamp-discrepancy-worry hasn’t sunset with two-more-yet to discover:
►When this case is further ‘Einstein’ed we find the assistant not-as-far-ahead as the traveler had declared—
►And the assistant’s event, much-later, because the traveler’s-frame leading-half tbias = vc ttra is retarded (−);
►The grid-stationmaster’s ‘legal frame’ must, therefor, find the assistant ‘three-ways-not-done-as-claimed’,
►(The event had not occurred, The assistant was not there, The assistant’s clock indicated later-arrival),
►(but with regard to ‘legality’—the assistant is making some pretty awful claims about the traveler, too);

(This can also be set up by calculated-experiment as, The Passing Painter’s Paradox: who gets the red!)
(Physicists probably answer this one by staying out of the relativist loop and reporting only afterward!)
(Meanwhile on-the-grid the traveler’s claim re the assistant is simultaneously refuted, by the assistant!)
(This inability to tell the truth makes physics a ‘science’ of excuses for ignorance and not going faster!)

►We’ll find Linear Stellar Aberration disagrees-with the synchronicity-assumption for accelerated-frames,
►So as accelerated synchronization is acausal there-is-no Special Relativity at all, by present construction;
►And with-or-without-acceleration any-and-all Relativity theory needs repair before prorating Einstein….

►[See also ppt-video "no simultaneity for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity"]

Part II: Gravity:

GRAVITATIONAL MASS-ENERGY EQUATIONS: (4th-grader questions re E = −GMm/R vs. mc2)

(Note that Newton did force and motion, acceleration, velocity; we’re including it all to energy);

►A test particle (e.g. neutron) falling into a singularity, gains infinite energy by reaching bottom r=0,
►So conservation of mass-energy dictates a gravity envelope-function, diminishing near the bottom,
►(And especially for mass-holes dictates a mass-energy,-envelope diminishing—near the bottom);

►But, Where is, the potential-energy, Is it in situ the test-particle-itself, Or is it near, the main, mass,
►If in situ then its deep-far-outer-space integral is infinite—or excessively larger than the local mass
►(because force ~ r−2 times available in-situs ~ r2, the spherical integral is constant for all radii),
►If nearby, how long does it take to get from the combined, gravitational-field-between-and-around,
►And is it in the field-beyond-behind-the-masses, And where is it when the test particle is not-there,
►Are we ready to say that potential-energy is, mass-field across space—not all in definitive ‘lumps’,
►Or, is it the test particle itself, being converted from potential to kinetic as it falls, (Einstein forbid);

►Potential energy is by relative distance; Kinetic energy is by relative velocity and-deBroglie-waves;


►Gravitational wave experiments A-LIGO and VIRGO have confirmed that “black holes” are hollow:
►Each “hole” merger radiates ~4.6% of the combining pair total original mass-energy in coalescence,
►cumulatively over compounding-mergers, retaining (1.−0.046)n ~ e−0.047n for n coalescence-pairings,
►(cf for singular galactic-core “black holes” e.g. our 4.2M M ~ 222 ×3 M minus 67% radiated),
►(sidebar: the time-scale for galactic-core full coalescence to singular is crudely the cosmic age),
►leaving potential gravitational mass-energy distributed as-is throughout the gravitational-stress field,
►(holing probably retains some of a neutron star’s initial interior mass, but leaves most outside),
►(or internally as mass-energy-turned-pure-photon-flux, slowed by gravity but not absolute-stop),
►(if the interior structure is the same for all mass-holes, the smaller holes may be moreso-hollow),
►so there is no singularity: mass-energy is sucked out as potential energy in a collapsing neutron star,
►(consistent with the notion of mass, in a collapsing mass-hole, is deBroglie-wave-lengthening),
►(consistent with the notion that inner mass is big banging outward toward the collapsing outer),
►(consistent with the notion that cosmic expansion is accelerating nearer the collapsing outer)...

(But note also that gravitational-field slowing of light does-not seem to pin mass-holes in space),
(so, there may-be a mass-aether that can slipstream faster-than-light-locally across, the cosmos);

(Or note also that a little black hole thrown directly into a bigger never gets beyond center to pull),
(so, either, it pushes, or, it has perpendicular motion around to the far side, so nothing does, enter);


►So, more-likely, gravitational potential-energy is distributed and recoverable at light-speed around,
►(possibly, gravitational potential compresses ahead of moving objects, so alignments seem FTL),
►Gravity is the effect of mass-presence-by-extension slowing light, (Einstein stated this in reverse),
►Light bends by its gravitationally nearward side slowing more (and thence by Huygens’ principle),
►Particles are like gyroscopes of photon-energy-trapped-in-place—so they ‘fall down’ self-entwined,
►The slowing-of-light captures photon momentum—whence a ‘mass-field’ has angular,-momentum,
►And whence Mach’s Principle effect for Newton’s rotating bucket (and thence a preferred frame),
►Galaxies, by their stars, drag their gravitation-field around (cf Big Bang drag-expansion of space),
►simulating excessive gravity (“dark matter”) because stars must therefor move faster to ‘stay aloft’,
►(and repulsion of counter-passing stars, ejecting them so they don’t stay around—to be detected),
►Early cosmic expansion increased the potential mass-energy most-rapidly in overall cosmic history,
►thus decreasing the deBroglie-wave-size of atoms and decreasing the total mass necessary for SN1a,
►resulting in dimmer SN1a now and thus seeming to accelerate, cosmic expansion, as “dark energy”,
►Our cosmos could-be a Big-Bang-suck-out by outer-cosmic-quark-star collapsing to ‘armageddon’;

(Note that the mathematical study of 3D/4D rotation is still valid mathematics worth studying.)

Part III: Space:


►A particle coasting across cosmic space leaves-behind increasing potential energy (mass) and-before decreasing potential energy (mass) except for the mass of the particle itself... so, form moves but cosmic mass does not...


►Bizarre Einsteinian paradoxes, Exceptional disclaimers, His assumed walking-at-light-speed relativity...
►Are there ‘two, world science, views’—or ‘two, science world, views’—Galileo pretended to think-so...
►(Perhaps Einstein never really cared whether Newtonian analysis might come up similar).

[See also relativity-notes in further progress]

Exam Questions: (relatively fun)

  1. LORENTZ-FITZGERALD CONTRACTION: How does the front end of the-long-pole-inside-the-barn contract toward the rear observer, and the rear, toward the front, if both front and rear observers measure the same-synchronized grid-time...?
  2. HOW DOES THE 'LAGGING' ROCKET jump its-own clocks into its-own future during its launch phase—to get that relativistic-space-contraction? Or is the cosmic aether a pantographic convenience...?
  3. SUPPOSE THERE WERE A 'THIRD' EVENT in the exact-same-line but further behind: Does it 'yank-back' both of those ahead—even further back—to satisfy its larger-perspective-frame-relativity...?
  4. HOW DOES THE ENTIRE OBSERVED -MEASURED- UNIVERSE, CONTRACT: Shrinking the cosmic frame-'mass' must be super-near-impossibly-costlier than the nearly-impossible-lightspeed acceleration of a capsule...?
  5. THE PERPENDICULAR DECELERATOR: Given a relativists' capsule traveling shy-light-speed, The application of a perpendicular thruster sends the capsule to a new heading but still shy-light-speed, so the perpendicular thruster must have slowed the capsule on its original heading while accelerating perpendicularly toward the new... but compare the action in the perpendicular thruster, relativistically compressed, its leading side later than its lagging side, the thruster starts by twist-turning the capsule off its platform-heading and away from the subsequent, and thence fully firing it's pushing-forward a little on the original course bearing—yet slows...?!
  6. TWO OPPOSING SPACESHIPS APPROACH AN ASTEROID BASE at velocities v1:A and v2:A. By the Special Relativity equation for combining velocities you say that the spaceship correlative velocity is v2:1 = v1:A + v2:A / 1 + β1:A β2:A , However, consider the reality of all that's been claimed for SR and its 'Preservation of Physics Equivalences' and therefor, v2:1 = v2:A:1 + vA:1 (all the same frame), and, vA:1 is just v1:A in the opposite direction, and, v2:A:1 should be the relativistic-frame-translation of v2:A which is v2:A / γ²A:1 (both distance-contracted and time-dilated)... but—these are not the same equation but differ by the factor of (1 + β1:A β2:A) under the translated v2:A term,—Ergo there is no overall-frame to be translated, as it's 'every particle for itself', Ergo there is no frame length-contraction and time-dilation except for 'still-life-paintings', though these were the basis for SR theory, (and probably not even under Hubble Expansion, but maybe we'll find something in the coefficient of recession-velocity-per-cosmic-distance or recession-per-cosmic-time).
  7. THE CLOCK HANDS PARADOX: The usual explanation for SR gives two (2) 'wow' points, "Time Dilation" and "Length Contraction," and then a bunch of equations... The class discussion ought include another 'wow' point, 'Clock Tripping' (or 'Clock Screaming' or 'Hyperclocking'), when successive local-passing clock-hands appear to be advancing faster than light-speed... but that's a 'scissors' effect (appearance)...
  8. IS THE COSMOS LEFT-HANDED or right-handed, or neither, because it's just a naming convention "i,j,k" vs. "i,j,-k" or "i,j,-(-k)" or... is it rather both-handed...?
  9. IS THE COSMOS ALL THERE IS, to itself, to the CMB, or, how thick is the CMB, to its backside, it hasn't worn thin yet in 13.82 Gyr, just cooler dimmer further away cf earlier its distance was closer, is the visible cosmos inside a several-times-larger faster-expanding remnant beyond our view of the CMB, are there 12 cosmoses surrounding ours (by sphere-packing) and statistically-half are antimatter-filled... and, is all-that-altogether inside the truly-infinite outer-cosmos, or transfinitely all we'd ever know of the outside (because cosmoses at large enough distances would have evaporated before a return-trip at the speed of light)...?
  10. IS THE SPATIAL-AETHER-VACUUM merely seemingly vacuous because 'the reality' is harmony-filling-all-space the central-lobe of distribution uninteresting to the 'mortal mind' excited and extremity-interested by 'slight inharmony' (not-too-close-up)—and so goes unnoticed as the very substance it really is and constitutes...?!
  11. IS ELECTRON SHAPE an interlocked pair of self-entwisting-figure-zero's at aether resonance locally defining its total confinement-convolved mass-energy, only seemingly-a-point because supercolliding electrons raises their internal-energy, shortening their internal-deBroglie wavelength...?
  12. DO QUARKS CONSTITUTE essentially three 'figure-zero's each spreading its flat charge in a different plane...?
  13. IN WHICH CASE WE ASK what is present in the aether that turns the head of such atto-string-flows of charge...?
  14. OR, DO WAVICLES ACTUALLY BOUNCE off each other, but being slightly wide cannot choose whether to bounce away left-or-right when exactly meeting tete-a-tete, as in the presupposed reverse-process of the positron-electron pair annihilation which usually yields a pair of gamma-ray photons, but sometimes a pair of gamma-ray-neutrinos, and potentially-if-possibly sometimes a Z particle, which yields in reverse order the antecedents from the products, without letting the two gamma-rays pass through each other...? And, What, is the key that locks or unlocks pairs of photons...?
  15. IN EITHER CASE WE ASK: What is it, that is, that moves at the speed of light or-super that seems in larger aggregate wavicles in conventional motion...?!
  16. EINSTEIN GRAVITY WAS INDISTINGUISHABLE from acceleration, but, linear-gravity would be constant and without angle...
  17. DOES A DOUBLE-SLIT experiment passing about-through an electron cause an electron-interference-pattern...?
  18. A LONGWAVE PHOTON is rebounded-blueshifted by an oncoming mirror, for half its wavelength, and rebounded-redshifted by the mirror receding, for its second-half wavelength—how much information is in this PHOTON 'noise', and, is the photon really multiple (cf radiowaves)... can energy be spliced into a photon this way... what, entangles, the photon to be an integral whole...?
  19. EINSTEIN ASSUMED time-dilation and length-contraction are in the 'observer's frame itself; So we ask the obviating question, 'How would a train ten-light-years long shrink two light-years while accelerating at an Earth-gee about a year's time to 60% light-speed'—part of it would have traveled backwards or part faster-than-light forwards contradicting his entire theory and practice—but not his calculations... What, did, Einstein, 'mean'.... (A similar discrepancy in corotating stars was noted in his century-ago early era of Special Theory.)


If we set up an experiment like the original interferometer 'clock' but use a sublightspeed particle, it seems a priori that the particle has its own frame and moves differently relative to its original Earth-frame: E.g. for a particle moving at v, perpendicular, and the fast-relative-(frame) at v, parallel, the two are moving relative to each other on their 45° angle with co-relative velocity very shy of that needed to keep the particle on its perpendicular track: (2v√½/1+½v²)), shy of needed v, parallel.

If lightspeed-like particles, e.g. a neutrino and a photon, race across the cosmos, does the massive particle slow due to the cosmic expansion of space, while the photon always-travels at the speed of light and 'cannot' slow down...

And a Newtonian-relativity paradox that needs-be-solvable doesn't appear any easier in Einstein-Minkowski SR: TO WIT: By symmetry, a test-particle in the frame of a Z-particle decaying to an anti-pair of relativistic electrons β± viewed from the frame of one of the two escaping, should gravitate toward the original barycenter (of the Z system), but the mass-energy of the kinetic velocity, when viewed offside like this, seems to belong-to-the-other and therefor the test-particle would be drawn to the other the relative-faster... We need identify what-and-where is the mass-energy of kinetic velocity—is it internal, like mass, or external, like magnetic-field... If we assume it is lightlike rather than restmasslike, the misdirection is more pronounced... unless a particle in its own frame has a standing deBroglie wavelength...

If an electric wire carrying current is moving at exactly the opposite velocity of its 'drifting' electrons, then its magnetic field must be emanating from the excess protons... but nominally-all the protons are in-excess, so from-whence does the magnetic field emanate, or is it pointwise-slightly different from the magnetic field of the fewer, more-individual-like, conduction-electrons... magnetism is a collective far-field and, transporting energy, must have a deBroglie momentum wavelength—but, is that shorter, by 'collective entanglement', (See also The Faraday-Maxwell Tease (trailer) centuries-old transformer equivalence 'extras' Maxwell's Equations skipped)...


* [I'd found immediately, unexpectedly, in learning Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, in college, the assumptions seemed purely calculatory and wrong, (co-moving widths without Bernoulli-Venturi 'inertial' flow pinch effects in the vacuum-aether of space), and reference-less, (the rear contracted toward the front, and the front toward the rear—of the 28-Glyr-wide cosmos), and meaning-detached (mass-energy coordinated purely vacuously to its mathematical metric-number field space), and discussion-jumped from simple notions of 'time' dilation and 'length' contraction directly to advanced calculation of spacetime transforms—without calculating how-to-ever-get-there... leaving students grasping its confusion of what time means having two components, clock-tripping grid-time minus gear-time with its slow-turning hands, to calculate the necessary time-bias everywhere × everyspeed now; meanwhile time is not really dimensional but a quantum-entropy-æther-property-transfer rate; And, the learner should have received an explanation of why only some, of these physics properties, had been included in the theory—why, inertial, mass was simplified to nothing, but gravitational, mass was given a whole new theory]

* [College professors usually wait 'til General Relativity, before declaring that there are not, two, kinds of time, But here we derive the two and further point out that in the current theory, raw time, is not entirely absent from SR equations: For the relative to calculate when, the future was at grid-time = 0, 'he' must refer back to 'his' past exactly the same, undilated, time-bias...which may help in fixing SR]

* [Einstein's Twins Paradox did-not require acceleration—the twins synchronize clocks in passing at time-zero-ground-zero and desposit information with each other at the destination point—without the traveler slowing nor turning around within the scope-frame of the experiment, it never-was, a paradox]

* [I've concluded a disproof of the original Theory of Special Relativity though I'd studiously expected a development or extension such as the lightspeed-expanding event-horizon around every event, bound under the Schwarzschild radius in cases of extreme mass: There's no Einstein-Minkowski inertial-frame-co-relativity as such]

* [FROM HERE: We'll see that the calculation of event-time is correct in both frames and for all four observers, the Earth and its photon-mirrors, the fast relative and the lead observer, and realize that the only faulty claim is that of the fast relative's immediacy obtruded on knowing that the relative frame is presynchronized: which is equally true for the Earth frame observers presynchronizing Earth clocks... the concept of 'here-and-now' becomes stranger than the General Relativity which was once said to be understood by three physicists]

* [FOR REPROOF, so next semester may be taught, the first approach to the resolution is to let contradictions become constraints replacing assumptions, e.g. advance the notion of linear stellar aberration... It's still interesting that the cosmic æther is mathematically simple]

* [ALTERNATIVELY: It may be said that a 'problem' crept into SR, that is the inability of any 'physicist', to tell-the-truth about what's happening within one's-own-self-synchronized frame: Because of time-biasing, each 'observer' must calculate-in each-other's velocity in order to 'tell the truth' to each other, but when-and-where is ambiguous, and changes if either changes velocity. Solve for a common]

* [STUDENTS NOTE: The concept of causality begins with the setup of an experiment followed consequently by its results, So, experiments in school, work according to the procedures, but, SR claimed that results could be observed sooner by a fast-relative but when in fact the real-observer knows, can ascertain and verify, the relative's lead has not yet arrived—hence the relative claim of certifiable early-sight is acausal not causal: only seeming causal by faulty predating, an assumption plying on the setup reliability]

* [P.S. IN THE COLLEGE TEXTBOOK, Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler, 1969, it was understood that Special Relativity had been tested as many-times-or-more than Euclidean-Newtonian theory; But the review and correction herein is nontrivial—the true test was probably never done before, and whatever is left to Einstein’s assumptions must be found-out-first before attributing them to any sort-of-object-relativity… and ‘til then’ (before next semester) ‘You just can’t get there from here’ (Equations don’t dispute equations), It’s all part, of the calculation]

* [WE NOTE ALSO that the Biblical Book of Daniel by several storied analogies discusses the perceptual relations of space, time, and light, counting steps on two horizontal dimensions, weighing on the vertical third, dividing by time for all rates of travail and travel (or dividing the past and future), that when exposed in the perfect fire that is light, on three dimensional actors and accoutrements, reveals the fourth like another dimension timely lord over all]

A premise discovery under the title,

Grand-Admiral Petry
'Majestic Service in a Solar System'
Nuclear Emergency Management

© [1969-1970], 1996, 2000, 2007-2015, 2017-2018