Question Relativity is broken, Please change my mind.

[sgtnos]

Speed of light papers: https://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicists-slow-down-light-vacuum-twisting-it/, https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/...-to-make-light-travel-faster-or-even-backward,
SAFIRE (they have also slowed down the speed of light and the last presentation was interesting).

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTaXfbvGf8E&list=PLwOAYhBuU3Uel_1K8_OQo11Tnvdaz6SJ8

Also there is violation of thermodynamics with blackbody radiation https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_Physical_Chemistry_(McQuarrie_and_Simon)/01%3A_The_Dawn_of_the_Quantum_Theory/1.01%3A_Blackbody_Radiation_Cannot_Be_Explained_Classically ,
Issues with general relativity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBorBKDnE3U&list=PLwOAYhBuU3Uel_1K8_OQo11Tnvdaz6SJ8&index=18 ,
Gravitational lensing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fePQdJNVF9g&list=PLwOAYhBuU3Uel_1K8_OQo11Tnvdaz6SJ8&index=14 ,

Okay at the point where we can do these things, found all of this evidence, do we start throwing old science that is clearly wrong out? The speed of light can be sped up and slowed down, in and out of a vacuum. The SAFIRE Project is now able to make a number of definitive statements supported by concrete evidence, statements about: energy production; transmutation/creation of elements; remediation of radioactive materials; and the sun and interstellar medium. We see no gravitational lensing around black holes, which is required if they exist.

Please address each source separately if possible, as I have not yet found or been given any answers as to how they are not correct and how it does not break astrophysics in general.

 

[sgtnos]

Look, the measurements are all bad because of https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/is-space-a-perfect-vacuum/ they ignore the fact that space is not a perfect vacuum and https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24153-solar-system-caught-in-an-interstellar-tempest/ we are in a dust cloud. They are not smart enough to figure out why

No One Can Agree How Fast Universe Is Expanding. New Measure Makes Things Worse.

We just might need new physics to get out of this mess.

www.livescience.com

 

[sgtnos]

We need new physics because they cannot get the same answers while we are traveling through a cloud of gas. I don't even know what to say.

 

[Truthseeker007]

We need new physics because they cannot get the same answers while we are traveling through a cloud of gas. I don't even know what to say.

I think it comes to the status quo. It would cost them to much to change all the books and they never want to admit they are wrong. Just like we are finding new history yet they teach the same things in schools and colleges. I think what it really comes down to is we have to teach ourselves and we can't rely on "experts" or "authority figures". I think we are kind of in another kind of dark ages where mainstream science is the religion that controls the masses instead of the catholic church. Both who hold the earth human race back.

 

[sgtnos]

I think it comes to the status quo. It would cost them to much to change all the books and they never want to admit they are wrong. Just like we are finding new history yet they teach the same things in schools and colleges. I think what it really comes down to is we have to teach ourselves and we can't rely on "experts" or "authority figures". I think we are kind of in another kind of dark ages where mainstream science is the religion that controls the masses instead of the catholic church. Both who hold the earth human race back.

I emailed the Prof from the article saying they had different results, I intend on posting the reply.

 

[sgtnos]

Also I did check all of the other studies linked in the article and I am going to email them after I get a response. I am adding this just to timestamp my plan and ideas. Nobody is going to say they came up with this suddenly, because I have proof.

 

[sgtnos]

New Hubble Constant Measurement Stokes Mystery of Universe's Expansion

A new measurement suggests that the universe is expanding faster than we thought.

www.space.com

This article is the next one I will contact.

 

[sgtnos]

No mention of the space cloud in any of them or Hubble's own work. If they messed this up, they need to go.

 

[sgtnos]

Cosmic Microwave Background: Remnant of the Big Bang

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is thought to be leftover radiation from the Big Bang, or the time when the universe began.

www.space.com

Same, last one I will be contacting and no mention of anything other than not everything is moving at the same rate, well a dust cloud would cause that to appear to be the case. It is based on space acting as a perfect vacuum, I don't understand why it is so dumb looking. If I am right, they need to quit.

 

[Truthseeker007]

I emailed the Prof from the article saying they had different results, I intend on posting the reply.

Well I can't wait to see that! That will be really interesting. Like all politicians I am sure the Prof will just talk around the issues and make it look like you don't know what you are talking about with some long complex words.lol!

 

[sgtnos]

The problem for them is all of the research and I worked in the Signal Corp in the Army and I understand how radio/radar/light waves travel. Also, because as an MP I had to learn some of that again for running radar/lidar. Cops are not supposed to run radar in the rain or snow for a reason.

 

[Truthseeker007]

No mention of the space cloud in any of them or Hubble's own work. If they messed this up, they need to go.

That is kind of odd they never mention the space cloud. Usually when they don't mention something they are hiding something or told to hide it.

 

[Truthseeker007]

Cosmic Microwave Background: Remnant of the Big Bang

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is thought to be leftover radiation from the Big Bang, or the time when the universe began.

www.space.com

Same, last one I will be contacting and no mention of anything other than not everything is moving at the same rate, well a dust cloud would cause that to appear to be the case. It is based on space acting as a perfect vacuum, I don't understand why it is so dumb looking. If I am right, they need to quit.

I think their is a lot they know about space but not telling us. And it is always my contention just from my own research the power elite behind the scenes have already been to mars and many other places not to mention the whole alien thing. To control populations the slaves and peasants can't know to much. I think it is all about control and status quo. But I hope you keep pushing them and see what happens. It will be interesting.

 

[sgtnos]

That is kind of odd they never mention the space cloud. Usually when they don't mention something they are hiding something or told to hide it.

Einstein had a different theory until Hubble "Proved" him wrong through his observations. Again, we are in a cloud of dust that Hubble did not know about when he made his measurements. The equipment he used to do this is less accurate than what people have at home and this effectively ended the search for an answer. If Hubble was wrong, then it doesn't allow for Einstein work, his own WORDS. The bending of light that has been observed is better explained through atmospheric lensing. This is so wrong it is terrible. It acts as if space is homogenous and it is in the article very clearly.

After Hubble's discovery was published, Albert Einstein abandoned his work on the cosmological constant, which he had designed to modify his equations of general relativity to allow them to produce a static solution, which he thought was the correct state of the universe. The Einstein equations in their simplest form model generally either an expanding or contracting universe, so Einstein's cosmological constant was artificially created to counter the expansion or contraction to get a perfect static and flat universe.[31] After Hubble's discovery that the universe was, in fact, expanding, Einstein called his faulty assumption that the universe is static his "biggest mistake".[31] On its own, general relativity could predict the expansion of the universe, which (through observations such as the bending of light by large masses, or the precession of the orbit of Mercury) could be experimentally observed and compared to his theoretical calculations using particular solutions of the equations he had originally formulated.

In 1931, Einstein made a trip to Mount Wilson to thank Hubble for providing the observational basis for modern cosmology.[32]

Hubble was able to plot a trend line from the 46 galaxies he studied and obtain a value for the Hubble constant of 500 km/s/Mpc (much higher than the currently accepted value due to errors in his distance calibrations). (See cosmic distance ladder for details.)

Idealized Hubble's law[edit]
The mathematical derivation of an idealized Hubble's law for a uniformly expanding universe is a fairly elementary theorem of geometry in 3-dimensional Cartesian/Newtonian coordinate space, which, considered as a metric space, is entirely homogeneous and isotropic (properties do not vary with location or direction). Simply stated the theorem is this:

Any two points which are moving away from the origin, each along straight lines and with speed proportional to distance from the origin, will be moving away from each other with a speed proportional to their distance apart.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

In fact this applies to non-Cartesian spaces as long as they are locally homogeneous and isotropic; specifically to the negatively and positively curved spaces frequently considered as cosmological models (see shape of the universe).

An observation stemming from this theorem is that seeing objects recede from us on Earth is not an indication that Earth is near to a center from which the expansion is occurring, but rather that every observer in an expanding universe will see objects receding from them.

 

[Truthseeker007]

Einstein had a different theory until Hubble "Proved" him wrong through his observations. Again, we are in a cloud of dust that Hubble did not know about when he made his measurements. The equipment he used to do this is less accurate than what people have at home and this effectively ended the search for an answer. If Hubble was wrong, then it doesn't allow for Einstein work, his own WORDS. The bending of light that has been observed is better explained through atmospheric lensing. This is so wrong it is terrible. It acts as if space is homogenous and it is in the article very clearly.

After Hubble's discovery was published, Albert Einstein abandoned his work on the cosmological constant, which he had designed to modify his equations of general relativity to allow them to produce a static solution, which he thought was the correct state of the universe. The Einstein equations in their simplest form model generally either an expanding or contracting universe, so Einstein's cosmological constant was artificially created to counter the expansion or contraction to get a perfect static and flat universe.[31] After Hubble's discovery that the universe was, in fact, expanding, Einstein called his faulty assumption that the universe is static his "biggest mistake".[31] On its own, general relativity could predict the expansion of the universe, which (through observations such as the bending of light by large masses, or the precession of the orbit of Mercury) could be experimentally observed and compared to his theoretical calculations using particular solutions of the equations he had originally formulated.

In 1931, Einstein made a trip to Mount Wilson to thank Hubble for providing the observational basis for modern cosmology.[32]

Hubble was able to plot a trend line from the 46 galaxies he studied and obtain a value for the Hubble constant of 500 km/s/Mpc (much higher than the currently accepted value due to errors in his distance calibrations). (See cosmic distance ladder for details.)

Idealized Hubble's law[edit]
The mathematical derivation of an idealized Hubble's law for a uniformly expanding universe is a fairly elementary theorem of geometry in 3-dimensional Cartesian/Newtonian coordinate space, which, considered as a metric space, is entirely homogeneous and isotropic (properties do not vary with location or direction). Simply stated the theorem is this:


In fact this applies to non-Cartesian spaces as long as they are locally homogeneous and isotropic; specifically to the negatively and positively curved spaces frequently considered as cosmological models (see shape of the universe).

An observation stemming from this theorem is that seeing objects recede from us on Earth is not an indication that Earth is near to a center from which the expansion is occurring, but rather that every observer in an expanding universe will see objects receding from them.

Do you have any kind of research on Einstein himself? I mean why were his theories allowed to become so popular? You surly hear more about Einstein's ideas than Nicola Teslas. I just wonder who funded Einstein and how he made his living. I have never looked into that very much. I mean sure we all know he was brilliant but why him when their are so many brilliant minds?

 

[sgtnos]

He did not do extensive work on the bomb and he did not know enough to keep him around as they continued the project. I can only guess that he was accessible, similar to what Tesla was doing when he would send ideas into the future by talking to the press and hoping it will inspire someone. Look at the celebrity scientists today, almost none of them work on real projects and they just run around and talk. The fetishization of science by the masses (Bill Nye the I only earned a BA guy is proof of this) has created a vested interest in keeping the status quo and they don't want to be called dumb. Not gonna lie, if all of this is correct, I am going to talk so much trash to everyone. People suddenly forget that Fold It (a game about folding proteins) solved a problem that scientists had been working on for years, in a month and I think they discovered the protein that they needed to for some cure. I would have to search the story, something like gamers beat scientists. Modern scientists are almost nothing but mathematicians that sit behind a computer and claim that their algorithms discovered things, which in reality are nothing but images created by a computer program they designed.

 

[Truthseeker007]

He did not do extensive work on the bomb and he did not know enough to keep him around as they continued the project. I can only guess that he was accessible, similar to what Tesla was doing when he would send ideas into the future by talking to the press and hoping it will inspire someone. Look at the celebrity scientists today, almost none of them work on real projects and they just run around and talk. The fetishization of science by the masses (Bill Nye the I only earned a BA guy is proof of this) has created a vested interest in keeping the status quo and they don't want to be called dumb. Not gonna lie, if all of this is correct, I am going to talk so much trash to everyone. People suddenly forget that Fold It (a game about folding proteins) solved a problem that scientists had been working on for years, in a month and I think they discovered the protein that they needed to for some cure. I would have to search the story, something like gamers beat scientists. Modern scientists are almost nothing but mathematicians that sit behind a computer and claim that their algorithms discovered things, which in reality are nothing but images created by a computer program they designed.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Yea Bill Nye the science guy what a joke. He definitely keeps the status quo. It seems a lot of the times when something new is found that goes against the status quo it is locked away in a vault or taken by government operatives. I think many scientist are also funded by the governments to keep the status quo. Just one example think of all the other inventions found that automobiles could run on besides oil. But there is no big money in it. They only make available the things that make money. Tesla's free energy machine sure won't make them any money. They aren't really worried about the environment or we would have all these things.