The Rubber Measuring Stick (On Einstein's Relativity)

[Guest]

Dear Geoff,

I've been re-reading your webpages on Einstein's relativity lately and it took me quite awhile to fully comprehend Einstein's main error. When I first read it I thought I understood his mistake (as you've revealed, the fact that Space is a wave medium), but I still had no clear understanding as to how his misconceptions of Space led him to assume the speed of light was constant. I thought for days, "If the speed of light isn't constant, then how could it always be measured to be constant?". But then so solution finally hit me. It's what you expect to find when you use A MEASURING DEVICE TO MEASURE ITSELF! Of course! All measurements of time ultimately lead to the frequency of waves, and all measurements of length ultimately lead to the wavelength of waves, and if what your measuring is light, which are the wave interactions of the very same waves, then the answer will always be the same! It doesn't matter how the waves distort, if all you have is a set of identical waves to measure them by, then the velocity = distance/time = 1 wavelength/1 cycle = 1, always!

It was as if in 1905 Einstein was a scientist stranded on the newly discovered planet of Relativity, with only a wrist watch and a metal ruler at his disposal from the wreckage of his spaceship. In his attempt to measure the speed of things on this new planet, he never realizes that over the years his wrist watch slows down (in his absent mindedness he forgets to wind it!), and in the increasing cold his metal ruler slowly shrinks. We know, with dramatic irony, that his measurements will be off. But this is in fact what Nature does with it's ultimate clock and it's ultimate ruler: it speeds up, it slows down, it stretches, it contracts. But how are we to know this if these are our ultimate measuring devices? To solve the riddle we must do a meditation on the notion of measurement itself: we can only measure something from an outside frame of reference, and once you reach a the final frame of reference with nothing else outside of it (the realm of the quantum), there is nothing left to measure with! Einstein, or anyone else, expected there would never be a limit to creating new outside frames of reference with which to measure. But if you try to measure the speed of light you encounter the very stuff that the universe is made of. All you are doing at that point is measuring waves with waves, 1=1, using a measuring device to measure itself!

urbanspaceman

[haselhurst]

Hi Ryan,
Thanks for joining the Forum. Hopefully we can do some good work together over time.
And I think you will find Philippe interesting as he is into marketing and will no doubt find your work / website interesting (please feel free to post a link to it here).

I really liked your article and title! 'The Rubber Measuring Stick"

I thought I would add a couple of relevant quotes (below) as it is worth explaining how 'solid bodies' can form from wave-motions as this relates to both the 'rigidity / elasticity' of Space and the interconnection of the In and Out waves.

[urbanspaceman_]

Hi Geoff (and others on the forum):

Oh, that would be quite thrilling if I REALLY believed I was one of 3 people on the planet who understood the true foundations of Relativity! There is at least one other Canadian who knows, and he also has a physics website! (hint: he's from Quebec). I DO believe we are in the minority, definitely, an elite group.

I was just at the British Library the other day and I listened to radio recordings of Einstein at an audio kiosk. The BBC has released a CD of these recordings to mark the 100th anniversary of his 1905 paper. I had never heard his voice before, so that was quite a cool experience. I was very moved by a post-war address of his, where he explained how the scientists who created the A bomb had little choice but to create it before Hitler did, but now that it had been used they should take responsiblity for what they had created. He mentions Nobel as an example, who created TNT and then used his fortune to encourage knowlege and peace through prizes.

We both admire Einstein very much, but it's unfortunate that many have gone beyond admiration to worship, seeing Einstein's interpretation as doctrine. He's treated a bit like a 20th century Aristotle by some writers.

But this is probably only one of the many reasons as to why few have come along to challenge and continue Einstein's work. After the 2nd World War serious philosophical thought in science went out of fashion. There's been many speculative books over the years, of course, but none as forceful as Milo's, in my judgement!

[gobayview]

1...2...3...4...These are just our attempts to represent reality. If we can ever really understand the "truth", it will not be labeled with a big "4". As with the speed of light, constants are simply conventient. The math works. It represents reality better than any given alternative. As long as we realize our own preferred methods are "tools" as well, i think we're safe.

Spice

[haselhurst]

Mathematics, Physics and Physical Reality

I agree in part with what you are saying. When it comes to mathematical physics, maths is not describing physical reality, but quantifying certain relationships.
The interesting question is; "Why does Mathematics exist in physical reality, why is Mathematics so suitable for representing physics?"

The answer, according to the Wave Structure of Matter, is that Mathematics exists because physical reality is necessarily connected (necessary for logic) and it contains many things (wave-centers, wavelengths, wave velocities) that can be counted / quantified and related in logical / necessary ways.

But the WSM is not just a 'tool' for thinking / imagining reality, it claims to be a correct physical description of what exists. That the word Space is more than just a word, but corresponds to the 'stuff' that we all experience and move about in, this Space of the world we experience. And when we correctly define Space, as a Wave Medium for Spherical Waves that form matter, then this leads to logic (necessary consequences) that do in fact correspond with our observation and experiments of the world.

Hope you enjoyed this little polemic!
Geoff

PS- If anyone wants to reply to this post on Mathematics can they start with a new post (and copy / paste the above in new post) - it is a bit off subject being under Einstein's Relativity