Welcome back to another thought-provoking session of Real Science Radio. As we journey through the intricacies of Einstein’s relativity, Dr. Pete Moore provides invaluable insights into why this theory holds such mystery for many in the scientific community. We delve into the Michelson-Morley experiment and discuss the controversial concept of ether, drawing on recent studies and historic scientific discussions. From E=MC² to the perihelion motion of Mercury, our conversation strays from conventional teachings and confronts longstanding assumptions. We also investigate the implications of quantum entanglement on relativity, offering a fresh look at these mind-bending concepts. Come explore the evolving
00:00:00 Introduction and Continuation of Relativity Discussion
Welcome back to Real Science Radio. Doug and I are joined again by Dr. Pete Moore as we continue our look into Einstein’s theory of relativity. Last week we began looking at some of the challenges to the theory, and today we’ll take it further with more evidence and insights you won’t hear in the mainstream.
SPEAKER 05 :
Intelligent design and DNA You have to understand, in some ways,
SPEAKER 03 :
Einstein, he certainly came out with something weird, but it was something weird that pushed him, and that was the Michelson-Morley experiment. No one could explain it. Michelson did it a hundred different times with different arm lengths, different times of the year, never could make any fringe shifts. That weirdness of result, Einstein finally stepped forward. It took him 18 years, but in 18 years he came up with Okay, there’s no ether, no absolute time, no absolute length, and you can’t prove you’re moving. See there, I solved it. Okay, most people don’t realize he answered this weirdness with something even more weird. Okay? And he fell into this Isaac Newton trap. And to show that’s exactly right, Newton had kind of told you, you’re going to get things unusual and purely mathematical that may not even be real. Now, Sir Arthur Eddington was… Einstein’s close friend, collaborator, and interpreter. And in 1919, of course, those two used to walk together, talk about Einstein’s theories. He was as knowledgeable as any man on planet Earth other than Einstein about the theory. Well, there was a time where a professor was talking and Eddington was in the audience. And when a distinguished physicist stated that relativity is probably understood by three people only, Eddington jumped up and shouted, who’s the third? And it is kind of a joke, but it’s not a joke. Quite frankly, even today, most people do not know what this weirdness is. Most people can’t do the Einstein math, and especially when you get to general theory of relativity, it’s very difficult stuff. So abstract. But this shows where science is. Science is to the point where they don’t understand Einstein. And yet, that’s what we’re pushing. Even in the creation movement, most creationists are now endorsing the Einstein theory. So the following slides document purported violations of the major tenets of the theory of relativity. Now, in our short time, I couldn’t give you all of them because there’s hundreds of them in the last 120 years. But I wanted to give some of the newer ones that have great weight and at least look at a few critiques of parts of his theory by doing experiments to prove the relativity theory wrong. But before I do, I still want to note that In the past 120 years, if no full alternate theory is proposed, the individual point criticisms, for the most part, have been ignored. And here’s kind of how it works. You have a criticism and you tell someone who loves Einstein’s theory about it and he says, oh, wow, I didn’t realize that it’s got a violation there. And what’s the theory then that’s going to replace it? And you say, well, I don’t have one.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, really? Yeah, kind of like that CU professor had warned.
SPEAKER 03 :
Exactly. So by default, Einstein wins. If you’re not going to put a theory in its place, they will more or less tell you, I’ll tell you what, next year you give us another talk, and maybe by then you’ll have something, and they just ignore you for another year. That’s been going for 120 years. Here’s a paper written by Stephen Gift that is a critic, and it says, Successful Detection of a Preferred Frame Using Eclipses of Jupiter’s Moon Io. And this was written in 2022. This is not old science. This is new science. Let me blow up that abstract a little bit so you can see it. In the abstract, it says there was a search for the preferred frame or ether. So when they say preferred frame, they’re talking about an ether that can be detected as opposed to the movement of Earth. And it goes on, these tests… were unaffected by second-order effects of length contraction and clock retardation. So when you get to second-order tests, those are affected by length and clock. And what he did is set this up towards a first-order effect, and they’re not affected. And then he was going to attempt to detect the ether drift resulting from the galactic movement of the Sun. So Maxwell had suggested that. That one would take six years. What GIFT came up with, you could do in just a matter of days. Here’s his conclusion. And the conclusion, of course, was focusing on Jupiter’s satellite Io. The direction of movement through the aether was detected. They detected the Earth’s orbital motion through this aether. This test was done in just a few days, not six years. A confirmation of the existence of the preferred time frame was done. They detected the ether. And then the last thing at the bottom there, the existence of this preferred frame violates a major tenet of relativity that says there is no preferred frame because there is no ether. So how can you have a preferred frame? He has found the frame. Here’s another one of his papers. I think this was in 2015. And on this paper, he talks about determining the range equation of the global positioning. He did this experiment using the global positioning system, which is rather sophisticated. And he found that it was inconsistent with the principle of light speed continency. In other words, he found that with respect to the observer, the speed of light was not constant. So let’s look at his conclusion. His conclusion was, experimentally demonstrated the classical light speed variation relative to the moving Earth. and it, at the bottom, directly falsified the light speed invariance postulate of the special relativity theory. So here’s two papers, both of them showing the violation of that postulate. Now, Dr. Gift has 138 publications, which I’ve placed here. You can go on the internet and and look at all of them. A good number of them are on other subjects, but he has a number of papers that deal with relativity.
SPEAKER 04 :
So this is a fellow who knows math.
SPEAKER 03 :
I went to AI again and asked the question, is quantum entanglement real? Fred, you had mentioned that this experiment proves that there’s something faster than light, because Einstein was quite certain that nothing is faster than light. And so I am not very familiar with the quantum entanglement experiment. So I went to AI and said, what do you think, AI? Is this real? And they came back and said, yes, quantum entanglement is a real phenomenon that has been experimentally verified. So, they share the same fate even when separated by large distances, the means that measuring a property of one entangled particle instantly reveals the corresponding property of the other, regardless of the distance between them. Well, if it’s instantaneous, that would be infinitely faster than the speed of light.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. And Einstein fought this tooth and nail. He called it spooky at a distance. And so three guys won the Nobel Prize, I think, in 2019 for proving Einstein wrong on the whole thing where he said that there were hidden variables when the particles were originally entangled. They kind of knew about each other when they were separated. But they find that, you know, you could separate these particles the whole distance of the universe, as far as you want. And they instantaneously know about each other. And so that was a serious problem for his darling theory. And we’ve talked about that before on Real Science Radio.
SPEAKER 01 :
Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
We get into quantum mechanics and how quantum mechanics is a problem for special relativity, for general relativity. And, you know, I’ve got a friend, president of Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship, and he supports Einstein’s theory. And he thinks that just it’s violated at the quantum level. Yeah. He admits that there’s a problem there, but you know, scientists are trying to come up with explanations for it. They’re like many world theories, all these really wacky ideas that you could never prove. But this is one that I like because it’s a pretty solid problem for the theory of relativity. And you can find that in secular writings. It’s not just real science radio reporting on this.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. And we’ll link, I’ll do my best, Fred, if it’s possible to link to all the shows that support, Relativity and the shows that refute relativity. And there’s been a lot of discussion and this is fascinating. Thank you very much for being here, Dr. Moore. Please continue.
SPEAKER 03 :
The most famous equation Einstein produced that caused the science world to throw its support behind relativity was the famous equation E equals MC squared. Now, what’s really humorous about this is just before we left to come here to Broomfield, my mother’s next door neighbor came over and he found out I’m going to be interviewed on the subject of the theory of relativity. So that was when the next day when we were leaving, he was outside and he says, oh, by the way, and I looked at him, he says, E equals MC squared. And I laughed. I told my wife, he couldn’t have said a better thing. Yeah. This is the public’s view. E equals MC squared, the hydrogen bomb, you have those thoughts. It’s so solid science that relativity just has to be true because this is what came out of it, okay? What is not well known is that the same equation has been derived with classical physics without any reference to special relativity. Thank you! Okay? Right? Yep. So you can get the same thing with just Newtonian-type mechanics, right? You can get E equals MC squared. Now, the reference I have is to Professor Simhoni and his book, Invitation to Natural Physics of Matter, Space, and Radiation. And on page 173, in five steps of algebra, based on a model of the ether, out pops E equals MC squared. You don’t need relativity. So it can’t be an argument that you must accept it because of this equation.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, Dr. Moore, just speaking for most people, even people who do have bachelor’s degrees, most people think E equals MC squared proves relativity.
SPEAKER 03 :
Exactly. But there’s something else about E equals MC squared that maybe even you don’t know, and that’s this. Einstein didn’t even use relativity to calculate E equals MC squared. What? That is an article that was published by Scientific American. And here’s what that article says. You can find the article online, and I’ve got the reference here to it, in 2015. But here’s what they said as they summed up. Einstein began by employing the relativistic relationships, the relativistic Doppler shift, that he had derived a few months earlier. but finally approximated away the relevistic bits, leaving an answer one can get from purely classical physics. Oh. Well, this is even more damaging. The one equation that just sent the whole herd of buffalo toward relativity was not even used in its derivation.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yep. This is from Scientific American, August 2015.
SPEAKER 03 :
So Simhoni does get it, and he doesn’t need 22 pages of derivation. He needs five steps of algebra if you have the right model of an ether theory. The first astronomical proof that Einstein announced that caused the science world to throw its support behind general relativity was… Yeah, this is general relativity. The prediction concerning the motion of Mercury’s perhelion. And this was one of his big predictions. And then it was found that it came true. And everyone said, wow, relativity has predicted this effect. And here it is in the stars, you might say, or the planets. Right, right.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right, just so people know, and I think people will relate, E equals MC squared is the first thing that proves relativity, and Mercury’s motion in perihelion is the second that proves it.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I’m glad you’re getting to that because, yeah, definitely there’s going to be questions about this irrefutable evidence of the motion of Mercury’s perihelion.
SPEAKER 03 :
What is not well known is that an even more accurate prediction has been derived using Newton’s law of gravitation with no modifications. That was done by Dr. Slusher. Back in 1984, there’s a book on it. I think I might have brought that book if you want to look through it. It’s a lot of mathematics went into it, but it’s all based on Newton’s law of gravity. And when you do the calculation, it’s even more accurate than Einstein’s. But here’s something else you don’t know. When you take the Einstein and look at Mercury, you get this nice result, but it produced inaccurate predictions of the other planets perhelion. In other words, why did he pick Mercury? Now we know why. Even a clock that’s not running will get the time right twice every 24 hours. And in this case, it happened to get it right. But take and apply that to Mars or apply it to the other planets. And it has large inaccuracies.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, wait, Dr. Moore. Has anyone done that? Because I lived through the 80s, and I don’t remember hearing anything about this.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, just like almost anything else in science, when you have a theory that is liked, when the proof comes out, they just don’t publish it. They won’t let your papers don’t get published or they won’t put it on the conference agenda and they just squash it.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, Dr. Moore, maybe this gets to what you talked about at the open was that if you don’t have another cohesive theory to present, it’s kind of a lot easier to just dismiss these things.
SPEAKER 03 :
By default, Einstein wins. Because even here, we’re doing a point-for-point critique of his theory. But so far, we haven’t put one on the table. And even though this is a really good one, if you don’t have something to replace it, it’s, ah, well, okay. So they ignore it. And life goes on for another 120 years. So stay tuned. And that’s why I wanted to bring this slide back up. Remember what Dr. Peter Beckman said. You must have a full substitute theory to that of special relativity. And, he said, it must be better than special relativity. And then there’s a third axiom. It’s the Pete Moore additional axiom. It must explain the MMX null result. Yeah. Without any weirdness.
SPEAKER 04 :
Get rid of all that weirdness. Now, that sounds like a pretty big challenge, because it sounds like Michelson Morley could never figure it out.
SPEAKER 03 :
They did not. They did have, Michelson had a theory of the ether. It’s called the entrain theory. And I’m going to show that to you in a little bit what that actually is. But Dr. Beckman has kept us on track. And now it’s time that I not just critique parts of the theory. I’m going to try to put something in front of you that I think is solid and can replace the theory of relativity. And to do that, I’m going to have to get rid of the weirdness that Michelson-Morley actually found. And to get rid of that weirdness, I’m going to redo the experiment of the speed of sound. So here we have our car, but this time I’m going to put a glass case over the top of it. So it’s completely encased now in glass, which captures the atmosphere inside between the sender and the reflector.
SPEAKER 02 :
So the sound is going to be the mechanism for the clock, is that correct? Excuse me? Is sound going to be the mechanism instead of light for the clock?
SPEAKER 03 :
In this case, sound is it, and then I will do the same thing with light. Gotcha. So we’re going to start with sound and say, with sound, we did get a difference, and it was experimentally verified. But now let’s put the glass case over it and do the experiment again. So we send the signal, and with the car standing still, 0.058, just like last time. We got the same result without the glass case, and we got the same with it. But now let’s go to the moving experiment. So now we put the glass case on, and we move the car 60 miles an hour, and the car moves forward, and it’s got to catch the receiver. It still hadn’t caught it, so we continue to move. Finally, the sound wave catches the reflector, and now the car continues to move, and the reflector shoots back, and now we get .058. Last time, without the glass dome, we got .11. Now we get the same as standing still. Notice that? What have we done? We’ve entrained the atmosphere and caused it to go with the car. When you do that, whether you’re standing still or moving, you get the same result. And, of course, this is a calculated. The calculated delta T is zero. All of this is calculated. Then we do the actual experiment, and the actual experiment comes out zero as well. You get the null result. So now we see that even with sound, if you set up the experiment properly, whether you’re standing still or moving makes no difference. Now let’s go to—and that’s not weird, by the way. That’s not weird. I’m sorry. Now we go to, let’s speed this up to light. Let’s do the light experiment with Michelson-Morley. The car now represents the earth, but we put a glass case around the earth and we do the experiment. And we get the same result, 6.6 times 10 to the minus 8 seconds. And that was in the north-south direction where the Earth is not moving. Now we do the same experiment with the glass case. But now the car is going to be moving 67,000 miles an hour. And It continues to move and it catches up finally. The light then reflects off as the car is still moving. And now the earth is moving 6.67 times 10 to the minus 8. Now that’s the same number. Of course, we had the same number last time. But when you go out 8 to 10 decimals, you begin to see there is a difference. So I let Excel now go out those 16 digits. And the calculated delta T, according to Excel, is now zero. Yeah. It’s expecting zero when you have the glass case. The null result that you got from the… And the actual, when you do the actual, which is what Michaels and Morley did, they got zero. And guess what, folks? That’s not weird. Yeah. That’s what we expect. But we have to entrain the ether. but there comes some problems with entraining the ether. And we’re gonna go into that. This is called the entrained ether theory. And so to do that, we’re gonna take the planet Earth, the blue shade that you see in the background, that’s the ether. And we have an Earth. And, of course, it’s rotating. And we’re going to send it around the sun on an orbit. But before we do, we’re going to let the Earth capture a chunk of the ether. And watch the Earth. See it turn kind of bluish like a blue bubble? That’s the entrained ether. And then we’re going to send it on its, guess what it did? It jerked the ether right out of the ether. See that black hole? Now, if there’s a black hole, there’s no ether, light can’t go through it either. So if that was happening and the earth going on, we should be able to look backwards and see a big black hole where low light can get through. We do not see that. Someone said, well, maybe the ether fills itself back in, so I’ll do that. So the ether fills itself back in, and maybe it did it almost instantaneous. But we’re also going to find later with Newton and others, the ether to support light going that speed will have to be stiffer than a diamond. It will have to have an elastic energy far in excess of a diamond, far in excess of steel. Now, can you imagine the earth being in a steel and it jerks a chunk of steel out and then the earth carries the steel through the steel? The entrained ether has some real problems with it if you think that’s your model of the entrained ether. Many scientists acknowledge the ether exists, but they have no full model of what it’s made of. So they don’t know the properties. If the properties are diamond, how are you going to take something that stiff and jerk it out of its place and carry it around the sun? Thus, they only know some properties of the ether, like its magnetic properties, its electrical properties.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I know Einstein even said that he believed in ether later on.
SPEAKER 03 :
You know what, you’re reading my mind. We’re gonna actually have that slide up here because you are going exactly where we need to go. Now there’s another type of ether that would also follow the Earth. It’s called the rotating ether. And so we’ll do the same thing. We’ll send the Earth on its path. This time the Earth is not gonna take a chunk of the ether out. It’s gonna be going around the Sun in its normal 67,000 mile an hour orbit. But I’m going to now take a cross-section through the sun in the orbital plane of the Earth. So we do a cross-section. And now we see a sphere. And now the ether actually is a sphere that goes clear out to the furthest galaxies. But I’m trying to stop it here at the Earth just to see what it looks like. And in this one, the ether has its center at the center of the sun, and the ether itself is rotating. But it happens to be rotating at a rate in 365 and a quarter days it makes one circle. So now it’s traveling the same speed of the Earth and staying with the Earth even though the Earth is not entraining the ether. Does that make sense? It does. Okay. So this is the other rotating ether that would cause that zero value to be expected. Exactly. But we have a problem with this one too. Okay.
SPEAKER 02 :
And I have to show you. You get the zero, but okay, so.
SPEAKER 03 :
If we go from the center of the sun out to the nearest stars, that’s four and a half light years to the nearest star. But if we only go out a sixth of a light year to that little, it’s beyond the Earth’s orbit, but it’s a sixth of a light year, at that point, that rotating sphere will be going the speed of light. So in 360 days at that 1 sixth of a light year distance, that edge of that ether is now going the speed of light. If you go clear on out to the first stars, the speed of light of the ether is now 28 times the speed of light. Now remember, the stars are fixed. So those stars do not move around. And that means the ether is going past them at 28 times the speed of light. Now we know here on Earth that when we take an electron, as small as it is, and apply a huge amount of energy, we can’t quite get it to the speed of light. We’re down 99.99%. We haven’t enough energy to make that little electron go the speed of light at the place of the Earth, much less 28 times. And we’re at only the first star. We’ve got to go on out to the furthest galaxies. At that point, we’re millions times the speed of light. And for the ether then to sweep through these massive bodies like it does Earth here does not seem possible. It’s just too much to believe the rotating ether theory. So I am canceling that one. And I’m going back then to what Einstein did five years after General. Now we’re getting back to what you said. He changes his mind. You know, they criticize sometimes creationists. You guys are a moving target. You have one theory, and then we find something, and then you change your theory. You know what? Einstein also changed his theory. Five years after general relativity, he said this on May 5, 1920. He said, we may assume the existence of an ether. What? Whoa, whoa, whoa.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hey, we’re running out of time in this broadcast, so go to our website to catch the rest of this program, realsignsradio.com.
SPEAKER 05 :
Scholars can’t explain it all away. Get ready to be awed by the handiwork of God.
SPEAKER 1 :
Tune into Real Science Radio. Turn up the Real Science Radio. Keeping it real.
Welcome back to another thought-provoking session of Real Science Radio. As we journey through the intricacies of Einstein’s relativity, Dr. Pete Moore provides invaluable insights into why this theory holds such mystery for many in the scientific community. We delve into the Michelson-Morley experiment and discuss the controversial concept of ether, drawing on recent studies and historic scientific discussions. From E=MC² to the perihelion motion of Mercury, our conversation strays from conventional teachings and confronts longstanding assumptions. We also investigate the implications of quantum entanglement on relativity, offering a fresh look at these mind-bending concepts. Come explore the evolving
