The Home of Natural Relativity and Natural Gravity

                                                    (March 2015 Version).

(Probably the path that physicists, but for Einstein and Lorentz, would have followed many decades ago)

                         Copyright © 2004 - 2015 David V Connell.    (email: dvconnell@betterelativity.com)

About the author:
     I came not from too many years at a learned academy; my mind was not burdoned with excessive exposures to Einstein's Relativity theories (SR and GR), which violated common sense. Instead, 12 years into my retirement, I went back to the simple, fundamental laws of physics and found that mathematical and physics sense agreed with common sense, destroying Einstein's fantasy. Most physicists should now be echoing John F Kennedy's words "How could I have been so mistaken as to have trusted the experts"; their dogma has replaced logic.
     Now, more than 10 years later, I have published many papers that, unlike SR and GR, correctly cross-check real relativity and real gravity with the laws of physics and the principles of relativity.


    This is a scientific site, probably of only a little interest to the general public, but is expected to be of extraordinary interest to all physicists, ex-students of physics and any others with a real interest in Relativity, who may NOT believe, or even DO believe, what they have been told about the speed of light, space and time distortions, etc. in Einstein's theories of Relativity (SR) and (GR) by the established body controlling the 'official' version of the truth.

        Key words :- Einstein's Relativity, Natural Relativity, Einstein Wrong, Speed of Light, Local Constants, Universal Constants, Mass Gravity, Real Gravity, Space and Time.

INTRODUCTION.
     I have not wasted everyone's time by writing about the anomalies and contradictions in Einstein's theories - volumes have already been written about those. They are chasing rainbows.
     I have assumed that most readers want to know if Einstein was right or wrong and, if the latter, what the real facts of relativity consist of, and believe that I have succeeded. If that is what you want you will find the quick answers in the first article listed below in CONTENTS, but I recommend you first read the rest of this Introduction.

     If there is a theory behind this work, it is that the presently known laws of physics and experimental evidence can now be used to discover the underlying relations between the laws of physics that causes them to be logical, consistent and fit together without creating anomalies or paradoxical situations (a different definition of Relativity!), in all frames of reference.

     In following the above plan the mistakes made by Einstein are discovered and revealed below, and corrected results obtained.
       If you have read the rest of this page a number of times and wish to go go straight to the table of CONTENTS, Click here .

     Relativistic changes (in mass, size and resonant frequencies) occur only when applied energy causes motion of material objects in a chosen frame of reference, even if that motion is only temporary in moving an object a fixed distance against a resisting force.
     In these articles, the term 'undisputed' is taken to mean that evidence questioning the validity of a theory or law of physics has not yet been found. Such evidence could be based on logicical reasoning from undisputed laws or from experimental proof.
     An inertial frame of reference (FoR) is one where no external energy is being supplied to change its speed or direction of motion.
      A “moving” FoR is one that has been accelerated to a constant speed relative to the home frame by externally applied energy.
      A FoR attached to an object in free fall in a gravitational field does not qualify as a moving frame for relativistic purposes as its total energy is not changed, but it does qualify as an inertial frame.
      A FoR attached to a particle on a disc rotating at a constant speed is both inertial and moving.

      The corrected relativistic changes in mass, length, and natural frequency, first derived from basic physics equations in 2005 and published in 2009 (NR), are also derived herein in several other ways, even one without any reference to known laws of physics(!) in a surprisingly small number of lines of text (<16)!
     The latter is possible because the laws of physics have caused the "dimensions" of all universal constants of proportionality in physics equations to be the same, namely, mass, frequency squared, length cubed. This enables any constant to be tested for universality, which has never been available before. That set of dimensions keeps the same value in stationary or moving frames of reference when the appropriate relativistic changes first given in NR are applied. Einstein's factors do not fare so well.
     This test has shown us that several supposed universal constants are not as supposed and it is agreed among physicists that one in particular must indeed be a universal constant so its dimensions must be incorrect. The correction indicates that gravity does NOT emanate from mass, and also causes a set of supposed absolute phyics quantities to be meaningless. Just as well really, absolute values violate the principle of relativity and should not have been allowed to exist in the first place. Their existence points to an error, but this, apparently, was never investigated.
     I don't know who invented Planck units or when, but whoever it was must have had some very strong influence. If you know, please enlighten us.

None of the anomalies and paradoxes occurring with Einstein's theories occur with NR, because every check possible confirms the results found in NR. Even the two energy equations predict the same change in energy when the relativistic changes due to motion are applied, whereas Einstein's factors predict opposite changes. In fact the two energy equations can be used in conjunction with one other undisputed relationship to actually derive the correct relativistic changes in moving and stationary frames.

     ONCE THE FOUNDATIONS ARE CORRECTED, IT ALL FALLS INTO PLACE,

    Most of the readers of these articles will attempt to find fault everywhere they are in conflict with the theory they have been taught. It is pointed out here that invalidation of a theory must come from UNDISPUTED physics, logic, or experiment, NOT from conflicts with other theories or beliefs, so, reader beware, there are many such conflicts in these articles where NR logic overthrows theories based on impossible assumptions.
    Nearly all the comments made by Physics Journals' reviewers of my manuscripts have violated that paragraph! They do not seem to know the difference between postulations and undisputed facts.
    It is noticeable from much reading of other papers that poor understanding of frames of reference is at the heart of many strange theories. It is therefore recommended that the articles at the top of the following list of "Contents" are read in the sequence given before embarking on the rest.

   CONTENTS. ("last updated" dates attached to each item).
Preface (above - 07Mar2015), Finally (below - 04May2014).
Was Einstein Right or Wrong?. (13Mar2015)
Moving Frames of Reference. (10May2014)
Relativity and Speeds of light clarifed (10May2014)
Nature's Magic for basic stuff. (10May2014)
The Natural Source of Gravity. (18Mar2015)
Mass, Matter, and Real Gravity. (Jun08-19Nov11)
Physicists' 100 years Errors Summary. (07May14)
SR's Problems - Some Common Misconceptions, and Many Invalidations of SR. (02Nov2011)
The Necessity of Solving the Clocks Contradiction of SR. (SEP05 - MAY14)
Curvilinear Motion Evidence. (17JAN09)
Red Shift is Due to the Doppler Effect . . . . Isn't It ? (22JUL10)
The Faked Derivation of Einstein's Mass-Velocity Equation. (2004-2010)

FINALLY
    Relativistic changes (in mass, size and resonant frequencies) are confirmed to exist with NR, and the contradictory and paradoxical situations associated with SR do not arise. All this is accomplished using only long accepted, undisputed physics.
    Some readers may think the above claims are impossible, BUT NOT SO, other more recent methods of deriving the relativistic changes confirm the NR predictions.

     This page has described the benefits of Natural Relativity for general consideration.
    Happily, the author (now many years retired) has no career to enhance (or have destroyed, as has happened to some critics of SR), so I have been able to publish this without any fears.

    It is again pointed out here that invalidation of a theory must come from UNDISPUTED physics, logic, or experiment, NOT from conflicts with other theories, so, reader beware, there are many of these in these articles (where NR logic overthrows baseless assumptions) and such conflicts should be carefully examined. It is probable that none can be classified as a matter of opinion.
    It is up to the qualified readers of the articles on this website to apply the facts disclosed in them to their areas of expertise or interest. This author cannot be expected to explain how this information exposes the flaws in the many theories associated with relativity which abound (due mostly to false assumptions and misinterpretations), or explain the anomalies, in all of them.
      One thing is certain, above all others, is that if any relativity effects in a theory disagree with the facts herein, that theory offends the laws of physics.

      Comments, feedback etc. are welcome. Also, If you agree or disagree with what you have read here, please say so, otherwise I may feel that I have wasted 10 years of my declining years (not many left now). Have I wasted my precious time?

    Click contact to send a message.
   Please use this mailto address, the previous one was not valid.
    Senders' e-mail addresses will not be disclosed to any other parties.
   The number of comments received to date is . . only 2! Why was this? Because the old address was no longer valid!

                              Web site inaugurated 25 April 2007 and occasionally updated.

      Click here to return to CONTENTS.