Einstein Debunked By Incontrovertable Evidence, Mass Exceeding Light Speed Observed

Any of you who have been following the Earth changes controversy with any degree of intelligence have probably discarded the Al Gore politically motivated idea of human caused global warming, and by now have by now probably come to the conclusion that the actual cause is the result of changes occurring in the entire solar system . NASA has confirmed the heliosphere is shrinking as the solar system enters an area of space with plasma of increasing density with magnetic properties.

Later I will get into the meat of the the falsification of general and special relativity and the details of the changes we are experiencing, what they are, and what implications they have for life on this planet, but first let me show you the incontrovertible proof I promised of mass exceeding and equaling light speed.

The reason it is so important that you see and acknowledge this is because it is going to be nesseccary for you to discard nearly every notion you have about generalized theories of physics and 'unlearn' practically everything you have learned and been taught if you are understand the ideas I intent to reveal as facts.

Of course as you know , one of the basic premises of mainstream physics is the inability of matter to exceed light speed. I am sure most of you have heard of the news of the detection of neutrinos exceeding light speed, but there seems to be some 'wiggle room' with the result and observations. there is no wiggle room with the evidence I am about to present, and confirm my earlier conclusions that a speed limit of C for mass is a ludicrous conclusion and the basis of Einsteins are theories fundamentally flawed. I also intend to prove that Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared is simply wrong.(E=MC^2) and has no basic whatsoever in reality.

I am disappointed that this is not on the cover of ever major science publication in the world, but not surprised. We need to realize as scientists when an idea that has been falsified by empirical observation, it must be discarded, or we are nothing more than readers and purveyors of complex science fictions , and fools.

It also means that more than half of the Nobel laureates of physics were improperly honored for their 'achievements' .

To see the proof for yourself, go to the following website and I will give you further instructions:

THE VERY LATEST SOHO IMAGES

(I am not able as a new member to post a direct link for some reason)

Select the link on the left margin labeled 'SOHO MOVIE PLAYER

Select "LASCO C3" from the list of image types

Enter the number 20120306 in the "start date" box and the number 20120307 in the 'end date' box
This is March 6th through the 7th

At precisely 1:29UTC on the 7th there is a CME (coronal mass ejection) of very unusual characteristics, in that there is no Sunspot associated with it, it appears to originate from a coronal hole but I am not certain other than the source WAS NOT a normal x ray flare event, though there was an X-5+ x ray reading associated with the more than 90 degree off Earth directed eruption. You have to watch the movie several times to catch it, but the first of the energetic particles reaching the satelite's senors from the CME actually preceded the light from it arriving, indicating velocity of mass in excess of C. It is also very clear that a large percentage of the particles were traveling at very near light speed as they continue to arrive as the CME erupts.
This is an empirical falsification of Einsteins theories that I really don't see how can be 'debunked', something that has been a long standing goal of mine since I realized the stumbling block to real advancement in the discipline they represent..

Earlier on this forum I wrote a theory of electromagnetic radiation under my actual identity and there was never any falsification of it attempted.

As far as I am concerned it is far more valid than any other explanation or theory of electromagnetic energy.
The only disqualifications attempted involved conflicts with 'accepted theories'. I do not know if the theory still exists on this forum, but if you want to read it, google 'electromechanical theory of electromagnetic energy". It is sophomore still in google with a single reply, though their were at one time several pages before the topic was closed an I was banned. It was never explained to me why i was banned.

In this theory I explained the particle wave duality of light, the frequency/ energy relationship, and provided simple mathematical formula that prove the theory correct. Any one of you are welcome to attempt to disqualify or falsify it, but I warn you, I will not tolerate or answer the use of conflicts with conventional academic physics as falsifications and will ignore them..

This post has been edited by Anonymous Astrophysicist on Mar 29 2012, 10:17 AM

Link:
http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/soho_movie_theater

This post has been edited by Confused1 on Mar 29 2012, 10:46 AM

Sorry .. best to start from:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html

Maybe some problem with setting cookies makes for problems setting the dates to be displayed.

-C2.

l believe waitdavid has predicted preciecly this effect using relativity under the warp drive technology topic
you'll forgive me if i don't post the link the phone is a pain.

I haven't looked @ the movie yet but david pointed out that an EMP could create a warp field allowing increase in speed without acceleration that is highly paraphrased


have a nice day.

I am sorry , but a what this man wrote about isn't a theory and only a vague explanation from a scientific point of view because there is no way to falsify it, and since it is coming from someone I've never heard of who has never published anything of consequence that uses Star Trek terminology , he simply ins''t a scientist in my opinion and is writing fiction.

I stated in my opening post my intention was to falsify and disqualify Einsteins most fundamental ideas , and that is precisely what I intend to do.

Mr. Einstein was quite emphatic about the upper limit of the velocity of matter being<C

I promised i would prove his basic formula of E=MC^2 was flawed, false and illogical and in this post I will begin on that.
In his formula he is not specific about whether the "E" means kinetic or potential energy, but let us assume it means kinetic since there is a velocity ^2 in the formula. What I intend to show is that this formula is nonsense, and in fact it is proved nonsensical every day in the operation of nuclear power reactors. We KNOW the mass isn't 'converted" to energy, and I can prove it using quite simple mathematics.

What I've noticed in the arena of physics is so many are under the delusion that genius is the ability to explain simple concepts in complex ways using uncommon nomenclature. The truth is of course the very opposite.
Like doctors and lawyers, physicists tend to use terms that are not meant to be understood and usually aren't even by each other ,and combinations of words that can have dozens of meanings in a single sentence. I am not one of these individuals

Quantum theory states that electromagnetic energy is kinetic energy without mass that is produced and released from an atom when an electron moves from one energy level to another.
Standard physics teaches us that mass is a [o]component[/i] of Kinetic energy]This translates into quantum mechanics is also illogical nonsense. If you read the theory I posted in my first post on this thread on electromagnetic energy, where the mass goes is explained and why electromagnetic energy has kinetic energy that varies with it's frequency is explained succinctly in a way the average 9th grade student of science can understand. Let us not forget Occam's razor.

, Unlike quantum mechanics the math concerning how the various frequencies of EMR energy is produced works out precisely in nuclear reactions. ( I will refer to electromagnetic energy as EMR hence forth to save time and space)

This is what confuses me about why we are holding on to these archaic fairy tales. We already know when applied to real engineering they don't work. . (lmao already)
The only thing different about Einsteins most famous and well known formula, the cornerstone of all of his work , is simply the formula for Kinetic energy is he enigmatically leaves out the 1/2 part of the formula at the beginning and uses the speed of light arbitrarily as he admits, to indicate a 'large amount of energy. If this isn't nonsense I don't know what is, and how could anyone use any math based on or derived from this cornerstone of his work in real engineering problems?! .

In other words the Kinetic energy formula is and always has been 1/2M x V^2. For there to be kinetic energy, there much be mass in relative motion to some other mass. Why did we discard all that we have learned and all of a sudden attempt (unsuccessfully BTW), kinetic energy without mass? Is there any two people on this forum that can write a brief essay on the basics of quantum physics independently and have both come out meaning exactly the same thing, understood exactly the same way by everyone who reads them that has a fundamental knowledge of physics? If not , there is no consensus and therefore no real theory, and I will challenge any two of you to complete that assignment. You will fail and you already know it.

There are great advances to be made in physics but not on a road to nowhere eating up huge sums of research funds and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
And by the way, I recommend that you use the spell checking feature and you have a nice day too

You can't post a like with the time parameters already set, I tried in another forum.
You have to enter them manually

seeing as you're anonymous you are less a nobody than I am. At least I have a name, and its strange that several prestigious colleges know me linking my site as reference matterial and you don't while you claim to be an Astrophysicist. Tell you what I'll walk you through it step by step. First, post here what the exact electromagnetic pp radiation solution to Einstein's field equations is and the exact cooresponding Einstein tensor. Hint - This will be easy to type out in standard uv coordinate form.

get on with it you pissy little gimp.

if you want to be a dismissive prick i will return the favor.
if you would like to have a mutual discussion i am willing to do that as well.
present your case and drop the pretence that you are the smartest man alive.

so far you have falsified nothing
presented no explaination of what you believe you have discovered
GET ON WITH IT

No idea what you're talking about. We see the light of the CME long before the particles reach the sensor. Not only that, but you don't even have ANY measurements of actual speeds to come close to calling this an "empirical falsification" of what you claim.

From this alone, I have no doubt that whatever you posted under you other identity is nonsense as well. And why exactly did you feel it necessary to distance this from the other post by using a sock puppet?

All very cranky, including your preceding grandiose delusions.

To be as more fair to him than maybe I should be, perhaps he's confusing his info with the case that neutrinos from supernovae tend to arrive at our detectors just before we see them optically due to the slowing of the light through the refractive index of the nova's matter. Neutrinos interact with matter so weakly that they aren't slowed from their essentially light speed movement but the refractive index delays the light pulse a few hours.

From 2006:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=5469

The electron as a photon doesn't interest me, maybe someone else will find it interesting.

Good point. Either way the claim is erroneous.

Actually i am not anonymous at all, since I referenced a theory with my real name on it. My name is Robert Hawkins. I test repeatedly in the top tenth of the 99th percentile of human intelligence.I have decided to use this scree name here since i use it on other forums where revealing ones identity might not be in their best interest, and i don't mind people of my choosing from these forums reading my work here or knowing my identity. My intention is to completely re write mainstream physics in the short itime I have left before I die..

The first thing that I would like to point out to you is that not a single person who has ever become a legend in science was traditionally educated, in fact they tend to all be self educated with some background in traditional academics. Since I have studied physics and astrophysics independently intensively for over 12 years and before iI began that intensives study engaged in an informal study and interest for over 40 years makes the fact that I don't have a PhD meaningless. There are hundreds of PhD's in physics and dozens of Noble Physics laureates who aren't nearly my equal in reality.
Remember, no innovator is a follower. Maybe your ideas have merit in your own mind and in the minds of this who cannot understand what you are claiming, but they don't to me because they are just another attempt to reconcile nonsense, and you're going to have to do a bit better than you have explaining yourself than using complex combinations of words that together in the pastern you present them are nonsense.

To the intellectual inferior, not being able to understand someones work is all to eloquently misconstrued as a display of superior intelligence.
Not me. If everyone with a background in the study of physics of reasonable intelligence does';t understand it exactly the same way, then it is not valid as science of any kind.

All that is required to prove the assertion of >c velocity of matter is to see the gradual increase in density of high speed particles reaching the sensors on the same frame as the light from the CME. This is clearly and plainly obvious.

You are unintelligent relying on the fact that you believe the time between images is too great to make an accurate assessment, and you ar to some degree correct.

HOWEVER, You ignorantly overlooked the fact that there is a live , real time stream of data. coming from the satellite that I have access to and archived and recorded, which I intend to post here as soon as that ability is made available to me.
There are many sources of data not commonly known to or available to those who do not know how to obtain them. I will reveal some of those 'secrets' here on this thread.

It amazes and disheartens me to see people defend s pseudoscience in much the same way as a religious fanatic defends and obviously false religion. it means you have been brainwashed and there is little chance of deprogramming you short of the same methods used to deprogram cult members.

What I showed you is good enough to convince all but the most hard headed brainwashed minion of pseudoscience.
Science is not mathematics, science is empirical observation measure by mathematics.

You lightweights might as well not post to my thread unless you like to be called out and exposed as ignorant.

You'd be surprised at how little that means.