At this moment there must be some particular event happening at Alpha Centauri, hence there cannot really be a whopping 8 year lack of definition?

If you say at the phone “At this moment there is a party at Cape Canaveral” I, staying at the end of the line in Germany, would be able to get the reference of your indication. This is because both sites use the same clock, i.e. the earth rotation (divided into handy units), and the phone’s signal takes about 50 milliseconds to reach Frankfurt.

Now, assume to be on the phone, telling me the pretty same story “At this moment there is a party at Proxima B”. The Planet Pb orbiting Proxima Centauri is about 4.2 light years away from us. As the signal is travelling with speed of light the words “at the moment” refers to about “Now_@_receiving minus 4.2 light years” which is pretty obvious the same story.

If I asked myself “Now, what is happening at Cape Canaveral?” I really would not think about the time needed to get my mind sent to that place!

If I think of “Now” the distance to the place of interest has no impact at all.

The pitfall of the people when thinking about time is obviously that they

identify the physical signaling time

with the notion of time.

This is my guess when reading “at this moment” implies to have an “8 year lack of definition”.

By principle, if time (as a concept) would need time (as to be needed for signaling), the time itself can give no reference without requesting the context as input.

Imagine You to ask at the ticket counter “What time is it, Sir?”. Then You’ll see a grim face and hear “Where do you want to go, Sir?”

You give back “That does not have any impact, Sir!” and then you will hear “Oh, it has, it has significance! If You want a ride to Frankfurt, you will get “Minus fifty” and if you want a ride to London, I have to indicate “Minus forty”.

“Frustrating answers!”, you would probably mutter while leaving the station because you had to realize that you were told the price and not the time. “Have a nice day, Sir!” you hear in the distance while You are thinking “Have a nice time” would have performed better.

Modern physics made a fool of itself, did follow Einstein blindly – as Max Planck directed. And now? They are none the wiser, so klug als wie zuvor. There was given a theory that pretended to get the c-is-const-hypothesis compatible with relativity principle. But it failed from beginning and the interpreters tried to make the students understand the paradoxes – until today. By applying high-tech experiments around the Einstein believing globe they try to prove that -despite all paradoxes- the theory of Relativity does hold.

What humans cannot understand they cannot take as useful. What is a theory good for if humans do not understand it?

General relativity and quantum theory are experimentally justified theories describing nature. Despite enormous efforts, a commonly accepted theory was not yet found.

If the so-called Lorentz Invariance holds the speed of light must be measured to be the same in any direction, and during any contínuous constant motion as well.

In our previous experiments a possible anisotropy of c could be restricted under a level of 5 · 10^{-16}. Our current setup shows an improvement of more than one order of magnitude and provides SME-parameters at the level of 10^{-17}.

Special relativity (SR) underlies all accepted theories of nature at the fundamental level.

In the classic setup, one compares the speed of light c in two orthogonal interferometer arms by observing the interference fringes. If c depends on the direction of propagation, the fringes would move if the setup is rotated. A modern technique measures resonance frequencies of two optical cavities. Violations of the isotropy of c may be detected as variation of the frequencies due to rotations.

A significant consequence of Lorentz symmetry is the isotropic nature of the speed of light, which remains invariant under rotation. Measuring the isotropy of the speed of light has played an important role in physics, starting with the seminal Michelson and Morley interferometer experiment in the late nineteenth century.

Question:
If we don’t want to measure some impact of rotational speed, how fast should the table rotate?

It should rotate as fast as possible!

Fallacy 1: Don’t ask the reason why

SRT just stated that speed of light is constant and therefore c must be measured to be const. But SRT did not explain how the light fronts would manage this constness – despite the fact that the light paths are different in length. The Lorentz contraction did not help H.A. Lorentz to explain, not A. Einstein to understand, not W. Pauli and not Richard Feynman – the latter just said: Must believe it.

Fallacy 2: Faith instead of critics

Is there one professorial chair in theoretical physics held by a person that is especially sceptically about Einstein’s theories?

Fallacy 3: Working without craftmenship

Craftmen need to prove what they are implementing. For this to realize they need to apply their own basics of understanding as their very invariants. The researcher at Humboldt University (Optical Metrology) just use the constness hypothesis of Albert Einstein to calibrate their instruments – without knowing the parameters that might cause or hinder that constness.

Euclidian Geometry to explain Lorentz Invariance

At first, we need to explain:

If light goes independently (from sender, receiver etc.) while the receiving mirror (beam-splitter etc.) is in motion there must be an adjustment of the reflector to match both beams.

The general assumption on this -always ignored- detail is that light goes the Fermat’s path which is equal to the shortest distance. If we use the arm of LIGO interferometer of 4 km length this detail no longer may be ignored: While the light passes 4000 meters the earth rotates forward by ca. 30cm; the beam would miss the target. Therefore the mirrors of the cavity need to have a concave curvature.

If spherical mirrors are used the light paths will change.

The path of light takes an asymmetrical form when spherical mirrors on our moving earth are used: The mirror (indicated by the circle) moves during the light passes (from A) upward to B matching it at the red dotted position. The reflection point is offset, the distance to the target is shortened a bit and consequently, the reflection becomes asymmetrically.

According to Fermat’s law the shortest path will be taken by light. Therefore the asymmetric light path is the one to be used in reflection-in-motion case!

Calculating the distance between both arms of the Michelson-Morley-Interferometer shows that both arms have exactly equal length if both beams are focused at the matching position that shows stable interference patterns.

Summary:

In order to prevent the walkoff of the vertical beam you have to use a spherical mirror.

In order to get the light beams joined after splitting you must adjust the mirrors properly.

In order to get a stable interference pattern you must adjust the mirrors during rotation.

If the light shows stable interference during rotation both mirrors will be set to equal path lengths and the vertical beam uses the asymmetric light path.

The operator himself selects the best matching pair of light paths. And – this is new for the scientific people selling Einstein’s relics – there is a pair of equal length.

If near-most equality is not enough for your setup, just use triple-reflectors instead!

The universities of Germany which are publicly financed are not even better performing when dealing with Einstein’s theories than others or of other countries. They fall into the Einsteinian traps by the dozen. Note the following fact:

I didn’t find some active teacher of a German high school or active lecturer of a German university that is critical about Einstein’s ideas and to state this publicly.

(Einstein’s ideas may not be called theories as they deal with objects existing in Einstein’s imagination only). This might be important for anyone interested in science: In reality we are caught and we are guided by two principles that seem to act like Pauli’s principle, but these are far more fundamental:

In reality there is one fact at any place.

In reality there only is allowed to persist what does not eliminate each other.

Any physical position may be occupied only once at at time: The house you live is not public space. In the opera seats are occupied or not and if so only once. Where your car is parked no other may be dropped. On hard disks any cell is magnetized or not. Hence, we don’t have to agree all the time about everything, about anything that is happening, did happen or even not. The facts will give the answer as long as the facts are clearly to be taken. The objects itself we are dealing with in reality enforce the concensus about their existence and properties. This is a quite useful property. We are allowed to state “the time will show” and take notice of this soothing and relaxing effect of our common reality.

Objects that exist in other peoples mind are hidden to us. Whether they do exist or not, whether they exist doubled or only on Mondays, this is hidden to all others that don’t have access to this particular piece of hardware. Therefore, in order to enable fruitful discussions and scientific dialogues with some benefit there must be established some procedure to give precise depictions of the objects created by mind. This seems to be the very basic error when dealing with Einstein’s ideas:

We imagine being able to understand what Mr. Einstein did pretend to have in mind.

As long as his stories are trivial (“the house is high”, “the nose is red”) they do not matter. If they are baffling like the story about the travelling twin that will return to be younger than his twin brother, he might be sure to get our attention. Our quite simple question “why he is younger then?” is answered by dozens of experts paid by the tax payers around the globe.

How do these wise men gain certainty to give the true answer (which may be given only [by using the principle of uniqueness in reality] as of to be Mr. Einstein himself who invented the clock paradox)?

How do they ensure that the ideas of a single man do carry scientific significance (Just compare that with Mark Twain‘s or Gene Roddenberry’s ideas that are not subject to science.)

Based on the facts: The experts cannot have any certainty as they cannot know what Einstein had in mind. They have models, calculations or diagrams to explain the ideas but they don’t have the fact that

the ideas have scientific significance or

the ideas are the Einsteinian ones and not that of Minkowski, Epstein or their own.

What does it mean to understand?

Verstehen ist die intellektuelle Aufbereitung von Sachverhalten zum Zweck der Wiederverwendung des Erlernten als nützliches Wissen.

To understand is intellectual processing of issues in order to gain knowledge to be used like facts.

Now, Assume that the experts

did manage to understand the clock paradox (twin paradox) and

did manage to give their insights to the audience in a plausible way.

At this point we might have:

The audience did understand and pick the explanation as their own knowledge to explain the effect. Hence the clarity gained might destroy their interests about the topic (as given for the Zonk-problem).

If the audience did not understand how to become younger as traveler the riddle about the twin could persist.

The second case only gives the chance that the intellectual investments of the lecturers in theoretical physics retain their value. Now, this is where the trap gave a click.

This is the point where to understand that to understand a story changes the way we will understand the people that are telling it all the time.

The light clock was an Escher picture

A proof that (c=const) is compatible with (covariance postulate) is still missing, Einstein’s try was flawed (he and Minkowski did show that one can draw a circle through any point and believed that this is physics). PerfectNonsensV2PerfectNonsense

The introduction of the Lorentz factor was the prime fallacy: Switching the time (to drive the speed) means to switch a vector, not just a scalar.

The light clock example loses its shape just after switching the reference.

Nobody is able to get information that definitely nobody does have. Those who believe that Einstein was omniscient want to become like him. If they were successful they will fight until their retirement and promote Einstein to be the greatest scientist ever despite that they were told better: HOW TO PROVE KASSNER TO BE OMNISCIENT?

(Hans C Ohanian did collect the errors of Einstein but did not the final conclusion: All about relativity was nonsense, just a waste of time. But his book started just by telling the story of Donald Crowhurst who did realize all this. You see that if people are given a choice to earn money by staying in mainstream (selling books, teaching nonsense, playing with LIGO, etc.) or to leave and live without all that comfort they would prefer the first. )

Therefore, as long as there could be made money with the name ‘Einstein’ there will be someone to tell us that relativity is a well-proved theory …

It is not, but You cannot make money by spreading this.

To exemply the economical impact of Einstein just take look into the preface of Max Born’s book about Relativity:

If you don’t know the number of the house you have to deliver some pizza, it will be useless to establish by definition that the house in the middle of the street should be thatone.

We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.

You cannot gain insights by definitions!

Let a ray of light start at the ”A time” t(A) from A towards B, let it at the ”B time” t(B) be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ”A time” t'(A). In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t(B)-t(A)=t'(A)-t(B). We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid. In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/(t'(A)-t(A))=c, to be a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space. We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.” We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time t(A), let it be reflected at B at the time t(B), and reach A again at the time t'(A). Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that t(B)-t(A)=r(AB)/(c-v) and t'(A)-t(B)=r(AB)/(c+v) where r(AB) denotes the length of the moving rod—measured in the stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

Vesselin Petkov argued in “Conventionality of Simultaneity and Reality” on the impossibility to determine the one-way velocity of light and the immediate implication thatsimultaneity is conventional.

The epistemological lesson […] demonstrates that every time when we arrive at a vicious circle some of our views should be drastically changed. And indeed the fact that the one-way velocity of light and simultaneity of distant events are conventional has turned out to have a profound meaning—reality is a four-dimensional world represented by Minkowski spacetime. There are no moving light signals or three-dimensional bodies in this four-dimensional world and when we describe it in our three-dimensional language in terms of motions, the velocities of these signals and bodies are determined by convention since they do no represent anything real.

Petkov uses a strange conception of our live and reality, based on a paper full of formal and conceptual errors. Vesselin Petkov is not alone with this conception, he seems to represent the main stream opinion of physics and philosophy:

Our live is a material disaster,

our knowledge is an incomplete view only and

all around us looks and acts quite nihilistic.

But: Nobody is obliged to accept what Einstein published. We can synchronize our clocks quite precisely by using satellite signals where two receivers stay at the same distance from the sender. Clearly, no signal can ever show the time it needed to run by itself, but we can use our genius to build a GPS and to detect nonsense. The einsteinian nihilism is indeed incapable to synchronize clocks. The B-clock is given always and independent from the causal velocity the same value when the signal is coming despite the fact that this value does not represent the reality of the duration. Therefore, and this follows without knowing any details, GPS-clocks would not be able to calculate some position if they would dice the time values of their clocks – like Einstein wanted.

We don’t find some active teacher at a German high school or German university that is critical about Einstein’s ideas and does state this publicly. Why?

It was John Smith, who did the delivery of the monkey wrenches, according to the author of Database Design and Relational Theory, Chris Date. He wanted to show the formal anomaly (connection trap) that is accompanied by loss of information if n-ary relations are decomposed into multiple binary relations and rejoined again. What he omitted was to indicate why there is a need to use a n-ary relation instead of binaries – without any formal reason. The formal oriented database design does not give a clue on design, i.e. what form to use for what. This all has to be provided by domain knowledge, i.e. the semantics and pragmatics that provide the detailed structure of the objects to depict.

The SPJ-relation “Supplier-Parts-Project” contains the data of all actual deliveries of parts for any project. By decomposing SPJ into three binary relations (Supplier-Parts, Parts-Project and Supplier-Project) the relations are projected such that edges (pairs of nodes) only become available. Joining relations means to combine all tuples by identity. The join operation creates the set of all feasible tuple combinations, not just the subset of the real ones. The example above shows four deliveries instead of three.

The idea to use an uniform structure for all data has been proposed by J.R. Abrial (“The Semantic Binary Model, J.R. Abrial, “Data Semantics,” in J.W. Klimbie, K.L. Koffeman (eds.), Data Base Management. North Holland, 1974.”) Within Abrial’s framework the SPJ-relation would be redesigned as three binary relations with foreign keys to some new relation containing the keys of all delivery events. One could easily reconstruct the facts by joining along the delivery keys. From this point of view binary restrictions may effect the efficiency of the retrieval process but cannot restrict the information to be retrieved.

After aggregation there may be anomalies…

We know the relativistic point of view which is all around during high school, at university and nowadays in the public press as LIGO’s search for gravitational waves is featured. The relativistic point of view does not accept a predefined common frame of reference and insists to apply relative velocities only. This is a mystery! How did Einstein manage to add the velocities, e.g. the speed of A and the speed of C? If v_{AB }is said to be the speed of A with respect to B then v_{BA }is the speed of B with respect to A. If v_{BC }is to be added to v_{AB }the result would more than doubtful because v_{BC} needs C to refer to some anchor and v_{AB} refers to B which is moving independently from C. So we must state:

The addition of velocities without common reference is void.

To add v_{BC} and v_{CB} is void then. To add v_{BC } and v_{AB} we have to use B as common reference. But what is the semantics of this sum if we don’t know the angle ABC? We have to admit:

The addition of velocities without regarding the incident angle at the common reference is void.

How do we get the angle ABC, and how do we ensure that it does not change during the maneuver? There must be a measuring process in order to check the distance between A and C -or which does the same- to measure the speed v_{AC} directly. So we have:

In order to add two relative velocities we must havemore than two relative velocities, we must have all relative velocities.

If all points are lined up and the point in the middle hides the third from the first the angle could be checked easily. But all other cases show the same rule: If we want to aggregate the velocities of all particles within a given segment we have to know the complete graph which is the velocity of any node with respect to any other node. This is equivalent to be omniscient.

What did science wrong when dealing with Einstein and his followers? They never tackled the fundamental lack of inference which opens the gateway for paradoxical phenomenons that may not even concerned as antinomies.

The relativistic position implies to be omniscient.

This MS-Excel bug is well known to me. I detected it about ten years ago, reported it to Microsoft several times. But until today there were no reactions. Presumably noone at Microsoft did ever take some notice of my emails.

As a consultant in financial industry I have to deal with yields, returns and calculations of these figures. In order to calculate the total return of some security or index you have to multiply all the individual returns of each period. For long existing funds this may give a long series of numbers. In order to shorten the multiplying procedure the power-function has been invented. This is where I did apply the ^, power-symbol, in MS-Excel to check some calculations. After a long journey through exclude and resolve procedures I got a very strange result, directly funded by MS-Excel, my ever used power tool. What I could not believe:

MS-Excel applies a wrong precedence order to the arithmetic operators.

The operator “unary minus” is given priority over the function call which is the power function a kind of. Note that by using the function()-syntax all the arguments are included by brackets or separators therefore no ambiguities may arise.

The programming languages are using the priority rules above because it is a must. If we would give the unary symbol precedence over the function call or the power-symbol we would face some trouble:

There are two fully equivalent formulas leading to different results:

+a–f²=0

–f²+a=8

In order to give this Excel feature some particular emphasis as a Level 0-bug I will append the equivalent implementation in VBA, the Visual BASIC of MS-Excel.

PublicFunction af(OptionalnSign As Integer= 1) As DoubleDim a As Double, f As Double, rc As Double
a = 4
f = 2
If(nSign = 1) Then
rc = + a - f ^ 2
ElseIf(nSign = -1) Then
rc = -f ^ 2 + a
Else
rc = Null
End If
af = rc
End Function

For both cases the VBA-function gives the result zero which is arithmetically correct. WolframAlpha gives a clear indication about who is wrong in this particular case.

When data mapping and data migration is part of your everyday work you don’t think about fundamental errors that may be brought in when bloody beginners start with it.

There is for example a database full of transactions and accounts each having a set of owners. Don’t even think about what to happen when twisting some of these relations. The top of the list of bugs was thought to twist all the ownerships such that every owner will get access to some foreign account. But this is not so bad as the following idea which was brought up by a student of physics few days ago: In order to check the integrity of the mapping procedures he proposed to use the method of Albert Einstein. Einstein wanted to prove his principle of covariance that the shape of a sphere remains the same after applying the Lorentz transformation.

Students of physics seem to believe that Einstein was able to prove -just by term rewriting- the conservation of the shapes which is not less than the invariance of the structure after mapping the data.

„Zur Zeit werde von dem zu dieser Zeit gemeinsamen Koordinatenursprung beider Systeme aus eine Kugelwelle ausgesandt, welche sich im System mit der Geschwindigkeit ausbreitet. Ist ein eben von dieser Welle ergriffener Punkt, so ist also x² + y² + z² = c²t².
Diese Gleichung transformieren wir mit Hilfe unserer Transformationsgleichungen und erhalten nach einfacher Rechnung:
x’² + y’² + z’² = c²t’².

Die betrachtete Welle ist also auch im bewegten System betrachtet eine Kugelwelle von der Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit c. Hiermit ist gezeigt, dass unsere beiden Grundprinzipien miteinander vereinbar sind.“

The translation of Einstein’s 1905 Electrodynamics paper states for the last paragraph:

„The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible.”

The equations of the Lorentz transformation applied herein are given as follows:

x’=γ(x-vt)

x=γ(x’+vt’)

t’=γ(t-vx/c²)

t=γ(t’+vx’/c²)

Given a spherical wave by the equation above we have to show that by applying the Lorentz transformations a secondary equation will be produced having the same form. The same algebraic form turns out to give the same geometrical shape. As the vector v of the velocity takes the direction parallel to x the equations y=y’ and z=z’ were supplied. The calculation steps are given in detail as follows:

No doubt we have the same form within the moving frame of reference K’. This seems to indicate that all frames of reference have the same spherical shape to observe. The Einstein’s starting equation was: x²+y²+z²=c²t². As the left hand side and right hand side must have the same value, we get: x²+y²+z²-c²t²=0.
The so-called Minkowski metric is presenting the same equation as: x²+y²+z²-c²t²=ds². Hence, what Einstein showed to be equal was: x²+y²+z²-c²t²=ds²=x’²+y’²+z’²-c²t’².

Summarizing the lines above the transformations of the Lorentz type restrict the transformed values to ds²=0 and therefore the proof of any invariant is limited to 0=0.

Einstein did prove that there is a sphere-like formula for every point to be described. What he refrained was to define some unique radius for all points of the same shape, i.e. to conserve the holistic principle of the shape. Einstein gave every point of the shape its own formula. In order to comprehend the fundamental nonsense of Einstein’s ‘proof’ it is important to realize that every point may be described as part of any shape or any object – without restriction and without any proof. If Einstein had to map all the accounts of some customer from different platforms he would have created as many customers as accounts he had. Note that only points that share the same x-value will be mapped to the same shape.

Einstein introduced the t-coordinates not as arbitrary but as some real time values. There are given no constraints for pairs of symbols like x’²~x², z’²<z² or ct_{F}=ct_{G}, therefore the variables of the first system K are not tightly bound against the target system K’. Einstein wanted to prove the compatibility of his basic principles. So he mapped every point to its very own shape and one spherical shape ends up in as many different shapes as points exist along the x-axis.

Einstein did not prove that all points of some sphere are to be mapped to the same sphere.

The notion of time in motion that takes different values out of the same time at rest is quite unknown. Do different time values indicate different times to take place or do all points of the coordinate system in motion share the same time but have different constant delays? The interpretation of an indefinite number of different times –like Wolfgang Pauli gave it– produces an indefinite number of different shapes out of one shape at rest.

Einstein failed to show that his basic principles are compatible. Just by demonstrating that there may be drawn a sphere through any point nothing may be shown. In order to prove that all points of shape A are mapped to A’ one has to assure that the formulas of all points of some sphere share the same radius:

The constraints above directly forbid to have different times within the same shape. When fulfilling these constraints all attempts to introduce some relativity of simultaneity in order to cope with manifold shapes are to be rejected immediately.

Imagine Scotty having beamed his captain that way Einstein did ‘prove’: He would have produced as many different captains as the body of his captain contained molecules.

I tried to find out how the distance of the Supernova ASASSN-15lh detected on 14^{th} of June 2015 was measured. I found dozens of copies of content in the web all giving the same information which is called the content. Obviously the authors took copies of the content from each other or from science magazine.

This example shows up that we have to run across the proliferation of the web, to cut the extent and not its content.

More than two decades ago I started to investigate the ability of the human brain to give one fact as many different faces as needed to represent it. This methodology was called “abstraction”. It is quite different

to Aristotele’s concept of abstraction,

different to mind mapping, knowledge representation

much more than semantic modelling
which i tried to concentrate on during my work at the university of cologne.

Finally, after more than 20 years, I found the ground to produce formal abstractions of informal content. The algorithm designed proved to be very useful on semantic queries, so i tried to apply it to the huge overcrowded news pages of the web. The results where somewhat disappointing because the content seemed to be condensed, completely.

The upcoming new Search engine technology was designed to stop frustrating searches on the internet. Our new search and fit^{TM}technology enables us to fit all newly found content into already known contents, just on the fly.

The users will be given a new and active role of themselves as researchers when using this technology:

Users will learn the content.

Users will stop searching for the same items again and again.

Users no longer will find the same content twice as they are given today by many different layouts, media and forms.

To offer a searching technology which does imitate yellow pages in order to maximize the time users will spent in front of the pages is a desaster.

Searching all the time and again is not appropriate for intelligent human brains willing to learn.