2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen - Kritische Stimmen zur ...

is actually the radius of the moving frame sphere and
thus representative of all distances in the moving frame
and not just vertical distances. Moreover, it then becomes
clear that real distances are not affected at all.
That is, the special property that Einstein assigned to
vertical distances actually applies to all distances. In
fact, time variance as defined by the transformation
formulas is contingent on exactly that proposition. It is
because real distances do not change that either the
speed of light or the rate of time must change. And, if
all are in agreement that the speed of light is constant,
then it is time that must vary. The shrinking of distances
in the moving frame then, is actually the shrinking of
the distances traveled by light and not actual distances.
Thus, if the distance light travels in an interval of time
changes and such distance is used as a standard by
which other distances are measured, then it is the standard
of measure that is actually shrinking. And if the
standard of measure is shrinking, then real distances in
the moving frame are actually perceived as expanding
in the stationary frame. This view is consistent with
observations that subatomic muon particles travel greater
distances in the stationary frame than can be accounted
for by their life expectancy and rate of speed. In other
words, we can say time has slowed down, or that the
actual distance traveled is perceived to have expanded
in the observation frame. Nonetheless, since real distances
do not really change, the only accurate argument is
that entailing time variance." � Der kritische Ansatz
des Autors bestreitet nur die behauptete Längenkontraktion
der SRT, anerkennt dagegen die behauptete C-
Konstanz und akzeptiert daher die Veränderung der
dritten involvierten Größe, der Zeit.
Rybczyk, Joseph A. 2003
The growing evidence that Einstein was wrong: [datiert:
20.2.03] / Joseph A. Rybczyk.
In: The general science journal. 2003 =
http://wbabin.net/jr/wrong.pdf - 2 S.
SRT. MASSE. ENERGIE. GRAVIT.
Auszug: "As development of the Millennium Theory
of Relativity progresses, the evidence that Einstein was
wrong continues to grow. Yet, there appears to be a
stubborn resistance on the part of the scientific community
to even examine this new evidence. In fact, it appears
that they simply brush it aside in the hope that it
will go away. A case in point: A world renown particle
acceleration center continues to show on its website
that Newton's kinetic energy formula, [Formel] cannot
be successfully modified by gamma to correctly give
the kinetic energy experienced at relativistic speeds,
even though such modification was successfully accomplished
last year in the millennium theories on energy.
(...)
In re-deriving the kinetic energy formula for this
latest work, another in depth examination of the relationship
between mass and energy was unavoidable.
Again, the author reaffirmed his original conclusion
that mass is unaffected by acceleration. It is apparent
nonetheless that the members of the scientific community
are either unable to comprehend the evidence provided
in the millennium theory, or simple don't care.
This is unfortunate because future progress in the physical
sciences would be greatly enhanced if everyone
could come to agreement on this simple issue. To assist
those who still have doubts as to the validity of the millennium
findings, the following argument is offered:
If mass really does increase as a result of relativistic
speeds, and if gravity is truly a function of mass, than
wouldn't the gravity associated with the mass also
experience an increase? And wouldn't this increase in
gravity be detectable at particle acceleration centers
around the world where particles are accelerated to near
light speeds on a daily basis? Or for that matter, in
regard to the particles that come through the earth's
atmosphere at such speeds on a daily basis?"
Rybczyk, Joseph A. 2004
Einstein's velocity composition proven wrong: the complete
proof; revised 10.10.03 [datiert: 20.5.04] /
Joseph A. Rybczyk.
In: The general science journal. 2004 =
http://wbabin.net/jr/velocity.pdf - 14 S.
SRT. V-ADDIT.
Auszug: "Perhaps the only other important point of
interest is that involving the results for Einstein's formula
for speeds that are a small fraction of light-speed
c. As can be seen in the graph of Figure 2, as the speeds
drop below .2c, the curve from Einstein's formula merges
with the correct curve given by the millennium formula.
This would appear to indicate that it could be somewhat
difficult to determine that Einstein's formula is incorrect
through experiments conducted in these lower ranges
of speeds. On the other hand, the fact that Einstein's
formula closely approximates the correct values for
instantaneous speeds could present itself as a source of
confusion involving even those experiments in the
higher speed ranges. With all of this in mind and taking
into consideration the great difficulty the author experienced
in the mathematical analysis involving velocity
composition, it is no wonder that it took so long to
uncover this discrepancy in Einstein's theory.
5. Conclusion
The evidence presented in this paper provides overwhelming
proof that Einstein's velocity composition
formula is invalid for it intended purpose involving
uniform motion. Quite clearly, Einstein's formula involves
acceleration composition, and as demonstrated
in this paper, is not entirely accurate in that application
either. Moreover, in view of what was shown, and if
relativistic principles are indeed valid, then only the
millennium relativity formulas for acceleration composition,
and velocity composition appear to be correct
for each of these respective applications. The only still
Textversion 1.2 - 2012 273
G. O. Mueller: SRT Kap. 4-Erg..