INCONSISTENCIES OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY
WITHIN PHYSICAL MEDIA
Richard Anderson
The R. M. Santilli Foundation
Abstract
This process was essentially based on the adaptation of nature to a preferred theory, rather than the adaptation of the theory to nature, resulting in widely acclaimed most incredible assumptions, manipulations of data and and theological beliefs for the specific purpose of maintaining the validity of special relativity under conditions it was not conceived, constructed and verified for, an occurrence that has being going on for about a century and recently intensified under the abuse of vast public funds.
Following decades of research, the Italian-American physicist Ruggero Maria Santilli has established mathematically, theoretically and experimentally that special relativity is inapplicable (rather than violated) for the dynamics of particles and light propagating within physical media, such as air, water and other media. For a presentation, the reader may inspect the latest paper (August 2009) and quoted literature
Experimental confirmations of isoredshift with expected absence of universe expansion, dark matter and dark energy
R. M. Santilli, submitted for publication.
Inconsistencies of special relativity in water
Prof. Santilli [loc. cit.] has shown that the adaptation of light propagating in water to special relativity is done via its reduction to photons for several reasons. Firstly, the reduction to photons scattering among the water molecule is done for the studios intent to re-establish the 20th century dogma of the "universal constancy of the speed of light" as being valid also in water although without any experimental evidence whatsoever, because photons would propagate in the vacuum. More insidiously, but lesser spoken, the second reason is that the reduction to photons is voiced to bypass the need for the universal substratum (ether) because its privileged reference frame is in flagrant violation of the very idea of "relativity." In fact, the moment light is admitted as an electromagnetic "wave", the need for the ether to characterize and propagate light becomes unavoidable, as well known. The above picture from [loc. cit.] is visual evidence that the reduction of light to photon, while evidently valid in atomic spectroscopy and many other cases, is a mere manipulation of evidence for the case of light propagating in water since the belief would require that the photons traverse a very large number of nuclei without any scattering (!!!), as evidently required to explain the visual evidence of the preservation of the refracted beam. The manipulatory character of the reduction to photons becomes compelling when considering the absence of any numerical. representation of any of the features of the refraction. In fact, the reduction of light to photons fails to reach a numerical representation of: the large and sharp angle of refraction that cannot exist at all under the photon reduction, trivially, because photons would be scattered in all directions. Similarly, there is the lack of representation of the large decrease of the speed of light in water for about 1/3 since its numerical representation for the photon reduction would require the total dispersal of the beam in dramatic contrast with visible evidence, etc. etc. Assuming that all these data are represented with yet unknown arbitrary parameters and hypothetical functions fitted from the data, as quite usual in the 20th century physics, special relativity remains inconsistent in water because massive electrons can propagate in water faster than the speed of light (Cerenkov light). Assuming the speed of light in vacuum as the maximal causal speed in water to salvage causality, there are violations of other laws, such as the failure of the law on the relativistic addition of light speeds, etc. The scientific reality outside the ongoing scientific obscurantism is that special relativity was not conceoived or tested for water, thus opening the door to broader relativities (see Prof. Santilli [loc. cit.] for technical treatments).
Paradoxycan inconsistencies of special relativity in our atmosphere
Prof. santilli [loc. cit.] has shown that, when passing to other physical media, the inconsistencies of special relativity becomes truly paradoxical, yet widely believed for about one century! In the above quoted paper, Prof. Santilli conducts an in depth study of the colors of our atmosphere with the following conclusions. The first pictures on the predominant blue color of the sky when the Sun is at the Zenith establishes that all remaining colors of Sun light are absorbed by our atmosphere, as confirmed by relativistic quantum scattering theories for which absorption is proportional to the wavelength. When passing to Sunset and Sunrise, this physical evidence is capriciously inverted contrary to all physical evidence. In fact, the widespread belief is that at Sunset and Sunrise we have the absorption of all colors except red. But at the horizon we have the longest propagation of light in atmosphere. The capricious character of the belief is then established by the fact that it is in fragrant violation of the very "relativistic" scattering theory. The situation becomes truly paradoxical at Sunrise because the "explanation" ventured to protect special relativity is, in reality, in direct violation of its laws! In fact, at Sunrise we more 'away' from the Sun. Therefore, the according to the shift law of special relativity, the predominant color should be dark blue and definitely not red. Again assuming that the usual 20th century manipulations of physical evidence via unknown parameters and arbitrary functions fitted from the data "to fix things" can somehow manage to represent the color of Sunset and Sunrise in a way compatible with special relativity, we remain with the visual evidence of the above pictures in which one can see the transition of the color at the horizon from blue during the day to red at night. The physical reality beyond the scientific obscurantism is that the predominance of red at Sunset and Sunrise is clear evidence of effects beyond special relativity treated quantitatively by Prof. Santilli's isorelativity [loc. cit.]. What a difference between the numerical representation of evidence provided by Prof. Santilli with his covering relativity and the hyperbolic hyperbolas without scientific content ventured to support special relativity! What a difference!
Hyperbolic inconsistencies of special relativity in cosmology
In the 1970s Harvard's astrophysicist H. Arp discovered the existence of quasars that, according to clear experimental evidence obtained via gamma spectroscopy, are physically attached to a galaxy, yet they have dramatically different cosmological redshift. The above picture illustrates one of the many quasars and associated galaxies known today. Arp's historical discovery was immediately denounced as a scam, and Arp was forced to leave Harvard University by organized interests on Einstein there for the Max Planck Institute in Germany where he still lives now. The reason for such an unreassuring reaction to experimental evidence is that the picture above is incontrovertible physical evidence of the failure of special relativity in astrophysics and cosmology. Therefore, the admission of this evidence would have implied the abandonment of the exact validity of special relativity throughout the universe with consequential large financial, academic and other implications. In fact, the only way special relativity can represent the cosmological redshifts here considered is that the quasars should move away from us at a speed about 100 times bigger than that of the associated galaxy, under which conditions the quasars and the associated galaxy should have separated billions of years ago. Prof. Santilli proposed in 1991 a deviation from special relativity originated by the very large chromospheres surrounding quasars and causing a shift toward the red without any relative motion between the source, the medium and the detector, today called Santilli isoredshift. In this way, the quasar light reaches empty space already redshifted. It then follows that the most hyperbolic conjectures are preferred for the interpretation of Arp's discovery, provided that special relativity is maintained, rather than accepting the physical evidence that special relativity was not conceived or verified within physical media. The problem for organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines is that not only Arp's discovery is nowadays an experimentally established fact, but also santilli isoredshift has been experimentally verified on Earth [loc. cit.]. Therefore, the lack of admission of these experimental facts without their experimental dismissals (rather than their dismissal with theologies) is causing a serious obscurantism in astrophysics and cosmology perpetrated for personal gains under large public funds.
As it is well known, the conjecture of the "big bang" was formulated following the discovery of the cosmological redshift, namely, the shift toward the red of light we receive from far away galaxies. What is not generally known, is that the 'big bang" conjecture was specifically conceived for the intent of preserving the validity of special relativity throughout the universe, for which reason the conjecture received initial great support from leading physicists, a support that is still widely acclaimed nowadays. The occurrence is unreassuring because we are dealing of scientists with vast knowledge of physics who, as such, are expected to be aware of the paradoxical inconsistencies of the "big bang" conjecture. For instance, the "big bang" conjecture is believed to have occurred some 15 billions years ago and at one point in the universe. Consequently, the "big bang" should have created a large region in the universe without any matter at all, a consequence disproved by astrophysical evidence. Additionally, the conjecture clearly implies that the Earth is at the center of the universe because the cosmological redshift is proportional to the distance from us (Hubble's law), a consequence that cannot be removed via additional hyperbolic conjectures such as the expansion of space and the like (everything goes to salvage special relativity !!!), since the "big bang" occurred at one point in our galactic environment. Rather incredibly, the "big bang" conjecture is widely supported even though it is in direct violation of gravitation. In fact, the expansion of the universe should have slowed down over 15 billions years due to gravitational attraction among the galaxies, while the believed motion of galaxies away from us increases with the distance!!! Prof. Santilli's isoredshift [loc. cit.] eliminates completely these hyperbolic abstractions and bring astrophysics and cosmology back to serious sciences experimentally verifiable on Earth. In fact, the cosmological redshift emerges as being due to the loss of energy by light while traveling in intergalactic space which is a physical medium with considerable energy density due to light, particles, dust, etc. It should be noted that the known hypothesis of "tired light" formulated as an alternative to the "big bang" conjecture, but dismissed by organized interest on Einsteinian doctrines, assumes the full validity of special relativity in intergalactic spaces, thus being disproved by the experimental evidence identified by Prof. Santilli for light propagating in water, air, quasar chromospheres, and other physical media. Therefore, Santilli isoredshift is structurally different than the "tired light" and similar hypotheses since the former requires a generalization of the very structure of spacetime, as a necessary condition to alter the structure of light, with consequential generalization of special relativity, specifically, for physical media.
As it is well known, there is a great, world wide excitement on the conjecture of "dark matter," namely of a mysterious substance that is fully transparent, thus invisible to us, yet filling up galaxies. the excitement has reached the point that the search for "dark matter" is now under way with large public sums in salaries and equipment, including an expensive space mission! The aspect that remains vastly unknown, is that, as it was the case for the "big bang" conjecture and so many others, the conjecture of "dark matter" was specifically ventured by high ranking interests in academia to preserve the validity of special relativity for the dynamics of galaxies, despite vast evidence to the contrary. In fact, the conjecture of "dark matter" is crucially dependent on the assumption that light experiences no change in its propagation through the dense gaseous medium in the interior of galaxies, as illustrated by the visible evidence of the above picture of a spiral galaxy. The conjecture of "dark matter" and its wide support reaches hardly credible dimensions, because voiced by expectedly leading physicists, from the fact that, if uniformly distributed, "dark matter" has no effect at all on the trajectory of galactic stars. Consequently, "dark matter" has to be placed complacently in front or in the back of a start "to adjust things." The paradoxical character of the hyperbola then follows from the fact that the trajectory of a near-by star becomes way outside astrophysical evidence. Again, the experimentally verified Santilli isoredshift [loc. cit.] eliminates the very need for the conjecture of "dark matter" and returns astrophysics and cosmology to serious sciences, that is, science based on experimental verifications here on Earth. In fact, the admission of the isoredshift of light propagating through the physical medium inside galaxies completely eliminates the conjecture of a hyperbolic mysterious, transparent and invisible entity in a way fully compatible with experimental evidence in water, air, and other media.
The conjecture of "dark energy" ( that the visible universe is only about 5% of the energy in the universe, the rest being characterized by a mysterious, transparent and invisible entity) characterizes the very climax of the paradoxical hyperbolas that are ventured by organized interests on Einstein doctrines and widely supported for personal; academic and other gains. As proved by Prof. Santilli [loc. cit.], and as it is the case for the "big bang", "dark matter" and other hyperbolas, the conjecture of "dark energy" has been specifically voiced by organized interests on Einstein to maintain the validity of special relativity for all possible conditions existing in the universe, thus including in the interior of astrophysical objects. The widely unspoken aspect is that the conjecture of "dark matter" requires that the speed of light in vacuum c is also the maximal causal speed in the interior of stars, quasars and black holes, in blatant conflict with the universally accepted fact that in the interior of gravitational collapse ALL of the physics of the 20th century is gone, thus including the beloved Einsteinian doctrines and the politics on the "universal constancy of the speed of light" also for conditions immensely far from those of its experimental verification !!! More specifically, the conjecture of "dark energy" is a consequence of the theoretical dogma that Einstein';s energy equivalence E = mc2 also applies for black holes, while Einstein formulated such equivalence specifically for "point-like particles" !!! Prof. Santilli has shown that the increase of the maximal causal speed C within the ultra-hyper-dense media in the interior of stars, quasars and black holes completely eliminates the very need for "dark energy" because the energy equivalence of the visible universe becomes a very large multiply of that predicted under Einsteinian doctrines and explicitly given by: 'dark matter" = mC2 - mc2, with C about ten times c, a rather moderate value if one considers the number of black holes in the universe, by remembering that causal speeds bigger than c in interior conditions (only) have been experimentally established beyond doubt no matter how ignored they are by organized interests [loc. cit.]. In short, it is time for astrophysics and cosmology, firstly, to set up ETHICAL RULES in the use of public funds (a main objective of the Santilli Foundation) before they may be imposed by society out of necessity, dismiss experimental evidence with counter-experiments rather than with theoretical theologies, and provide priority not to political preference, but to the most plausible bailable interpretation of our extremely limited knowledge of the universe.
**********************************