1

The biggest hoax in history

(Extract from The "time" doesn't exist) http://www.scribd.com/doc/131616609/timpul-nu-exist%C4%83

Some people had lifted at the level of an art the way in which they hits their head against the wall. They only put themselves in an embarrassingly position: right beside is an open door *** Let's consider the mechanism which leads to the secretion of hydrochloric acid in the stomach of a dog when the light bulb announces the imminent occurrence of the food. That means a kind of physiological reaction to a specific signal. But, the light bulb IS NOT FOOD! And yet it generates a specific physiological response. This is purely formal, without object (the dog "prepares" to eat, what? the light bulb!?). Is it a meaningless biological relationship between the light bulb and the hydrochloric acid? This relationship doesnt ever "consume physically: the dog doesn't eat (to digest) the light bulb. In other words, the relationship is strictly "formal" (it exists exclusively in the body, the idea). But obviously, it is not a biological process (in the sense of an indispensable process for preserving life). And it hasnt a real support (outside of the body). Then what is it outside the body in the case of a formal reaction? Is it something which has no connection with the context, is it out of normality (the light bulb)? Its a signal. So, a signal can generate only a formal reaction. That makes it different to a natural stimulus. Now, imagine that you put the actual food in front of the dog. If this is done before turning on the light bulb, the dog will reject it! There are two links on people - chimpanzees" comparative studies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAoJsS9Ix8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHuagL7x5Wc From these materials it is clear how the man (like Pavlov's dog) denies the reality following a process of implementing formal relations. The whole context ("signal" => formal response => "reasoning") is parallel to the reality that generates "life". Similar: the "movement" between objects may be a physiological reaction to some stimulus that does not biologically exist (like a "signal").

And so, "NON movement" (the reality") can be, a priori, rejected. *** Einstein put the experiment Michelson - Morley at the base of his effort to keep "alive" a causal ("Scientific") model of the Universe, despite the special (not causal) behavior of the light. Or maybe he did that on purpose? Based on the results of this experiment he gave the postulate II of Special Theory of Relativity ("Speed of light in vacuum is an universal constant, "c", independent of the light source movement"). Electromagnetic radiation, the support signals for our contact with reality, has a limited speed. But, fundamentally, as long as its speed is the same in all cases, electromagnetic radiation cannot transport the causal information for the relative movement between objects (the base for any scientific model of the Universe). The light it "moves" in the same way, respective to the objects ("sources" and "receivers"). Like all the "sources" and the "receivers" would be at relative rest. If it were really so, it would mean that the relative "movement", perceived through light, doesnt exist, physically: it is only the consequence of some special way of knowing the world, of the Humans. And hence the objects, in reality, simultaneously exist. I mean, as I shall present below, those are integrated in a geometric context, thus losing their identity. So, the Physics it put under the carpet the next contradiction: the speed "v" of an inertial motion (of an ISOLATED frame of reference) can be considered only by the mediation of the light which has no interest for any "objects (see below). Means: 1) It is good for us that the light has no physical interest for any objects". So the exchange of signals between two distinct inertial frame of reference (with a relative speed between them) does not modify their state of isolation, 2) It is bad because the light, automatically, it may not physically considered one of the attributes of "objects" (assigned by us), their own relative "speed". This material seeks to demonstrate that "the specific way of Humans to know the world" is based on induced physiological processes that generically generates the sensation of "time". I found that this "small" discussion about a possible reciprocal to the second postulate is rejected without arguments, before even being considered. That means a kind of physiological reaction to a specific signal. Like above! The "movement" can be a physiological reaction to a stimulus that does not biologically exist? How? For Homo sapiens sapiens, each of the objects" (involved in "movement"), are well defined in "space and time". This means that there must be some physiological mechanisms underlying these differentiated contacts. And these specific mechanisms, also, must be well differentiated.

But, in a living organism, despite of the chemical latency of all processes, those are simultaneous. For example: "Given the evolution in time (reflected by latency ) of these processes, how can it be explained that a foreign substance is detected almost immediately and the body can already start producing suitable antibodies?" - Karen Bulloch - University of San Diego, 1978. The entire BIOLOGY pretends NOT TO SEE that for a living organism, any contact with the environment, inside or outside of it, if it does not take place "in due time" (which means "in the lack of time"), it is lethal. IN THE BODY, DESPITE THE CHEMICAL LATENCY OF CONSTITUENT PROCESSES, THOSE ARE CARRIED OUT SIMULTANEOUSLY, IN A CLOSED CYCLE. In other words, in some way, the chemical latency of the distinct processes becomes unmanifest to the level of the body which works as a whole. This mechanism (described in articles posted at this address) do the indefinitely preserving the geometrical and functional properties of the body's own structural elements. This is happening despite of the "physical" contacts with the outside. This phenomenon is generated spontaneously in nature. But, the differentiated account of the distinct "objects", involving the parts" of the body, is "learned" only later so it can be regarded as such by Homo sapiens sapiens. It follows directly that also the "moving objects" can be a taught appearance. It would mean that the relative "movement" could be only the consequence of a specifically (imposed) way to know the world of Humans. Which way, is also, unnatural. The Science could remain without the "work object". A causal model - free of "movement", which is established by "measurement" (synonymous with "comparison", which means "relative") hasn't any sense. "Causality" is a method of analysis which represents a reaction to the Church's attitude toward "knowledge" (obviously wrong, respective to an "absolute" landmark, see e.g. "Geocentricism"). Occurred and sustained with great efforts, and even with huge sacrifices, "causality risks being undermined by some experiment. Its results had involved the simultaneity". That was evident, despite any "measurements" of the relative speed of the objects. "Simultaneity", and the reality involved by it (geometrical, not "measurable", as "God" is), says that the scientific method of knowledge would have proved wrong. But the crisis has not appeared in 1887 (date of Michelson - Morley experiment). It appeared between 1864 and 1884 when Maxwell's equations reached the form that we know today. As I shall present below, they are "vicious", respective to the term whose definition was mentioned in an article in 1945 by engineer Paul Postelnicu (see below). "Vicious" would signify processes with causal relationships along of a closed cycle. The consequence would be that such a causal complex of processes does not have a contact with the outside of the complex. It manifests strictly geometrical. Maxwell's equations tell by their shape, that the "light" is such a complex and, therefore, it does not interact causally with matter. This is not so hard to see.

Someone may object: "But photoelectric, photochemical, thermal, laser effects of light, what are they? Are they not some causal (open) interactions of light with matter? " Something does not fit into this picture? We have some causal relationship in each of the above cases (e.g. Maxwell's equations, in which it is featured the "time" as parameter)! Arent there some causal phenomena in a "source" and / or a "receiver? Oh, yes! Yet the speed of light (even if it is only its speed within a given material) does not cumulate vectorial with their speeds. Why? PARADOX!? Obviously not! Thats because none of the above phenomena occurs individually, as it is considered in formal terms, by specific experiments. They are all occurring simultaneously and the complex becomes automatically "vicious" = "closed". Is it the situation in which the complex does not causally relate with the matter? This conclusion was, however, systematically omitted from scientific analysis for understandable reasons. It had emerged from the results of Michelson - Morley experiment. The eventuality (now obvious and disastrous for the science) was that the reality could be not causal. Thus, the "absolute simultaneity", for a period, was just ignored (not being considered in any way). This happened on the ground that due to the increase of the precision of measurements, the situation might change. It was a convenient option, but fragile. At any time, someone could take of it, systematically. The majority of the "scientists", in the memory of their great masters and initially driven by the best intentions ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions"), could not bear the prospect of failure, now evident by experiment. They accepted the compromise proposed by Einstein. How can one describe this compromise? The absolute simultaneity" should not be ignored but simply "destroyed. But we can't destroy something which is not manifested (it is only ignored). Something, anything to be "destroyed", initially must be considered in the condition in which it manifests. Paradoxically, it may seem that there is no another way. Einstein never risked when he rushed, so sure of himself, with the postulate II. This is based in fact on the state of "viciousness" of Maxwell's equations, not on some arguable experiment: Michelson - Morley. Postulate II is the ACCEPTANCE of "ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY". It is absolutely legal to say, from a causal point of view: all objects, "sources" and/or "receptors move alike, respective to the light". That means they are, in reality, at relative rest between them. With regard to all objects ("c" universal constant) the rest is NOT relatively but absolutely. "Simultaneity" itself is absolute! And thus, it is considered to manifest! Now, it can be "destroyed"! If objects would "move" differently ("relatively", causal, "measurable") not only among themselves but also respective to the light, then, under any circumstances, their relative

"movement could not be construed as a subjective appearance, but as an independent reality from Humans. The "medium" in which it can be considered respective to the light "movement" is different by matter, constituted by objects (with which it does not causally relate). It is, in Einstein's theories, the very "time" (a category causally undefined). Or more precisely: the "measurements" of it. At this level Einstein simulated the different movements" respective to the light of frames of reference which are in relative movement. And we wonder why the model is not intuitive... As an argument in favor of the idea that it is only a "simulation" I shall refer to the analysis of prof. Dr. Nicolae Barbulescu, discussed below, which shows that the "independent" and intrinsic manifestations of the "time" (the "expansion" for example) are not real. Those are considered only because of formal processes (simulations) of "sync - measurement". Actually, this is quite natural, given that: "Special relativity (relativity theory or restricted relativity theory) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial reference systems proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in his article On electrodynamics of moving bodies." http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teoria_relativit%C4%83%C8%9Bii_restr%C3%A2nse And "Measurement is the process of experimentally obtaining one or more values of the quantity reasonable attributable to a size. Metrology is the science of measurement. Measurement is the process of determining the size of a physical quantity, such as length or mass, relative to a unit such as the meter or kilogram. This definition is valid in physics and technology." http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%83surare What doesnt fit in the picture? "Measurement" is NOT a physical phenomenon! How could it be accepted by physics this physical (physical?) theory of measurement (and not by metrology)? However, worse is something else! Namely that even the "sync" and/or the measure" are not processes properly defined and used by Einstein. For Einstein, "time" is a unique number (a unique indication of the device) not an entire "process" of "measurement": Under these conditions we understand by the "time" of an event, the reading (position of the hands) of one of these clocks with which it is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation. - The Special and General Theory (1916) by Albert Einstein, translated by Robert William Lawson. So, the "sync" of the two clocks is identified by his definition, with the similarity of only one of the indications of each clock, not with the synchronous development of the two measurement processes of the two clocks. "Sync of two clocks involves, at least, the similarity of two different indications for each clock. It means that sync is effective not only by the identical indications but by the similarity of manifestation of processes from the intervals between them. Causally, "sync" is a term which refers exclusively to processes which it manifests in time.

Because for processes" this type of "sync" does not make any sense, Einstein invented the "events". Without manifesting into "time" they actually don't exist, causally speaking. All this construction proves that it is not about excusable errors. But about premeditation: Einstein reaches at "values" of time without measurement (comparison processes: of the phenomenon of interest with the rotation of watch hands, for example). And occurs the "declaration" of the values of "time". Like in the theory of gravity (in which the theoretical construction is relative to Etvs experiment) Einstein's approach does not aim at truth but at constructing a solution to a problem without solution (the behavior of light) in the wrong context (causality), just because it is generally accepted. Under these conditions, "declaring" the values of time is relative only to the SIGNAL. But the SIGNAL is not the "light" coming from the phenomenon but only the moment (obviously "in time") of its contact with the Observer. This moment is the only variable element in the process of contact of light with the observers who are considering their own relative "speed". This means, the element which is different from a frame of reference to another, move relative and inertial. Unlike the speed "c" which is constant at the contact of light with matter (experiment Michelson - Morley). Around this moment it is "built" the famous theory. This is what Einstein wanted to obtain: something, anything, different at the contact, if not at the contact with matter, at least, at the contact of the observer with the light. Only the exclusive consideration of the SIGNAL (a property that is not of the radiation, neither of matter, but only of the "observers" - subjective) by "declaration" of his value of time, can show like a manifestation of the speed "v" of relative motion of two frames of reference in contact with the "light" (see definition of "simultaneity", below). Needless to stress that the matter, unmanifested like "observer", cannot consider its own relative speed (inertial movement, by the principle of relativity), and cannot benefit from such "facilities" (like SIGNALS non material contacts). Why do you think that in the mental experiment for deduction of Lorentz transformations there are only observers and the SIGNAL...? Unlike in the initial conditions for deducing Galilean transformations ... where, at least, there is a material body... Everything happens only in Einsteins mind. But this is not a "good" thing: there, and in any other mind, the contact with reality is mediated by conditioned synapses (see below). As noted above, the light cannot support the information of relative "movement" of objects. Below, and also in BIOCENTRISM - Manual, page 24, I described a geometrical model of generating a sensation of rectilinear and uniform "speed", in the case of Homo sapiens sapiens. The problem is that the speed "v" is measurable and the SIGNAL, by its nature (without evolution in "time") is not measurable! Under these conditions, it does not exist in the scientific way. It must preserve its nature (implicit, the dependence by "v") but it must be measurable.

That is why Einstein was forced to define "measurements" of "time" in relation to "events" (which have the same nature with the SIGNAL: no evolution in "time"!). And not with the "phenomenon"! In the mental experiment for derivation of Lorentz transformations (in which two observers, in two frames of reference in relative movement with the speed v, are considering a light signal), we have such an event: t = t'= 0 - disguised as "initial synchronization of the clocks". Considering this event, by his definition of simultaneity Einstein may give different values of "time" (t t ') to the indications of the clocks of the two frames of reference in relative ("causal") "movement". Thus, he "destroys" the absolute simultaneity" (according to the scenario set out above). Is this process legal? A real synchronization (of the time measurement processes) must provide a whole set of values t = t to be considered, before any measurements (not just a single indication, thereof, for example. t = t '= 0). It follows that, except for t'= 0, all the other t' values are invented at the end of the "sync". Those values, being different from t, it results, in fact, a non "synchronization" of the clocks. But Einstein considered t as the results of some measurements" ... When are given different values on the "tail" of some clocks sync processes, begun by a single contact, it occurs: 1) Filling the synchronization processes. 2) Synchronization is effective only by identical results at the end of a number of processes (t1 = t1'; t2 = t2, and so on, with t1> t, t2> t1 etc.). 3) From now on, possibly, the measuring can start. 4) So, t t '(processes with different "tails") means desynchronization (origin of all special phenomena in Einsteins theories). Einstein never reached to "measurement" in his mental experiments. It is a cheap trick, disqualifying for anyone, but especially for a scientist! Does it seem a harsh statement? Then let's see how much it would have cost him to make something good. To properly define the "sync" of the clocks (respective to "processes" and not to "events" which dont exist causally, in time) he would have had only to repeat at least once the synchronization process set out in its "official" definition. This is possible anyhow, with a slightly different calculation, even when the clocks are in relative motion, with the speed v. Consequently, it results two pairs of similar indications of the two clocks. And that sounds OK for the sync. Or not! Returning at the mental experiment to obtain the Lorentz transformations, it is found that any other equal values imposed by this correct definition of "sync", other than the initial values, t = t '= 0, lead to the conclusion that there is no reason not to consider any other values, indicated by the clocks for the same phenomenon, as equal, t = t '. Possibly, even those corresponding to the same point in space, reached by the wave front of the initial signal. The result: the entire "Einstein relativity" would have collapsed miserably You may find that this reason is strong enough to explain the premeditation of this "error"?

If not, what would you say about Einstein considering, unambiguously, the correct synchronization mentioned above (of processes, which generates, by default, equal values t = t') just because he can use it for his "lame" sync, which leads to the values t t ', indicated by the clocks for the same event? In other words, what would you say if you discovered that his clocks displayed two different values for t , simultaneously? I shall start by explaining the issue: As you know, in the mental model mentioned above, the "space" is a quantity that receives, by hypothesis (principle of relativity), similar values in both frames of reference. Whether its about the moving light signal (provided by O O'; t = t = 0 and x2 + y2 + z2 - u2 x2 + y2 + z2 - u2, whit u = ct; u = ct), whether its about the relative moving of frames of reference with the speed "v". In the latter case, the space is given by the quantities s = vt and s = vt (see below)

Relative movements" of the two frames of reference are rectilinear and uniform (inertial?) And they are strictly symmetrical. Mean that exist the speeds v, v, with v v. And speed "v", "v '" have meaning only to the conditions: v = x/t = x1 - x/t1 t ; v = x/t= x1 x/t1 t. And v v 'exists only if x/t = x/t. And, thus, only if we still measure at least one pair of equal time values, in addition to the t = t = 0. That, because it must exists t and t between the limits imposed by the uncertainty principle. Otherwise the speeds may not be considered in physical terms! But assuming any other values equal of "time", different from the original, t = t '= 0, determined by Einstein, we can conclude that there is no reason to not consider any other values, shown by the clocks for the same event, as being equal, t = t '. It follows that if there exists v v ' then "time flows" are the same, in both frames of reference and the clocks it works" by continuously and properly synchronized stages. I do not think there is any ambiguity in this approach. The absolute simultaneity is attested "by hypothesis", by the simultaneous acceptance of the same amount of the relative speed, v v ', which can be measured only by clocks for which t = t ' all the time. Over that, Einstein proposed a new synchronization superimposed on it, which means desync. More specifically: the initial condition x2 + y2 + z2 - u2 x2 + y2 + z2 - u2 contains all the evidence of the "crime". The two expressions (each representing an interval in the Mincowski space) are both "real", respecting: - The meeting point of the origins of the frames of reference, O O' and of the time,

t = t '= 0, disguised as "synchronization", - The condition t t'. But, the identity x2 + y2 + z2 - u2 x2 + y2 + z2 - u2, sets (doesn't demonstrate) simultaneously, that the observer O' (Einstein?!) wants to see afterwards on its clock only values t' t, of time. You will recognize, I think, the mechanism "consider and destroy" from above. It is identical with statements like "this white sheet is black " or "this circle is square". In Romanian: "crap at sight!" An aberration is swallowed easier if you start with a verifiable true statement. But certainly, you know what I mean. Subsequently, the mathematical analysis of the identity x2 + y2 + z2 - u2 x2 + y2 + z2 - u2 does not find that t t' but conveniently explains (according to Lorentz transformations) this absolutely illegal conjuncture. In the restricted theory of relativity Einstein invented the clocks showing simultaneously t = t', for the calculation of "v", and t t', for the calculation of "c". For this "invention" presumably, Einstein should have taken the Nobel Prize...