# Why Einstein was Right

Why Einstein was right, when he was, in his “Relativity” theorizing, was often because hidden facets of mathematics and of the definitions used in physics allowed the ideas to be usable, even if his reasoning were fallacious. In other words, often, he was lucky.

Einstein’s Special Relativity, which title for it, I am told, he disliked, accurately describes how information is changed as the relative velocity of a transmitter/receiver pair approaches the velocity of the carrier wave. When the carrier wave velocity is taken to be the limiting relative velocity of any two independently moving objects, the Special Relativity view leads to nonsensical conclusions.

“SR” accurately predicts that “Mass” will increase when a moving object reaches the “speed of light.”  However, the prediction is that the mass will go to “Infinity.”  There are some problems with that. Infinity.” in practice, simply means that our measurement device, or our logic,  fails at this point. There are two other factors, of which Einstein seems to have been unaware, which come into play here to allow his model to accurately predict a change in the situation at the speed of light.

First, even mathematics does not allow empty space.  There is always an implied “dot field” or “dot matrix,” so it can be expected that what ever is considered to be moving would be moving within “something.”

The other factor is also mathematical.  When the process of “Integration ” is carried out on the momentum equation, mass times velocity equals momentum,  (m x v = P) , this process can be carried out with either the mass or the velocity considered as the variable.  If velocity varies, we get the usual kinetic energy equation, KE=(mv^2)2.  However, if mass be considered as the variable, with velocity constant, we obtain another energy equation, (vm^2)/2.   This latter does not appear in the literature and has apparently been ignored. These two equations may be interpreted as indicating  that “velocity” can change to a limit, if it hits a limit, and the “accelerating situation” continues, then, “mass” will change.

Neither the “dot-matrix” aspect of mathematics, nor the alternative energy formulation, seems to appear in any of Einstein’s work, nor anywhere else in the readily available literature. If both the dot-matrix and the alternative energy expression that appear in the mathematics are reflected in reality, we see that any moving entity within the matrix will, itself, be a part of the matrix and the mass will be a measure of the balance of the interior of the moving entity and the remainder of the matrix. As long as the translational velocity of the moving object is small with respect to the average speed of motion in the matrix, there will be little effect of the “second” energy equation. Velocity will change and the amount of disturbance dissipated by the matrix, i.e., the “Energy” will be measured quite accurately by the “Kinetic Energy” formula. There is a change in the situation  when the translational velocity of the moving object starts to equal or  to exceed the average of the matrix. (In the “Universe” In which we exist, this average is known as “c,” a “constant of nature” which is the “speed of light in a vacuum.”) At this point there  will be a significant change in the balance between the rest of the matrix and the part of the matrix within the surface of the moving entity, this surface will become changed in size and shape. The motion disturbance is no longer primarily dissipated into the matrix at large, but becomes localized at the surface of the involved entity.  The balance changes, the “Mass” increases. Special Relativity turns out to have been at least partially correct. The situation changes at the speed of light.

A third factor hidden in the interface between mathematics and reality apparently allows Einsteinian Space-time modelling to give quite accurate predictions. This is in the definition of “Time.”  In the “Space-Time World”  of conventional thinking, “Time” is a reality which somehow came into being at the beginning of “Existence.”  Actually, time probably should be considered as  a convenient method of keeping track of motion in sequence by a measured interval.  The hidden factor that apparently makes “Space-Time” modelling work is that “Time” is always referenced to some reproducible cycle in nature. Therefore, “Time” has hidden within it not only the idea of motion, but also the idea of cyclic motion. A unit of time, a second, for instance, can therefore represent a cyclic motion, or motion in a circle, and the expression “sec^2,”  could stand for the motion content in the volume of a sphere!  This insight leads to some interesting interpretations of some of the equations of physics, which, unfortunately, are beyond the scope of the main thrust of this paper.

The “hidden factor in Time.” however, makes Space-Time Modelling and Motion in a Matrix Modelling reach much the same conclusions and, at this point, they seem to be essentially equivalent approaches. A Motion in a Matrix user being, perhaps, more cognizant of why the ideas have validity. This “circle/sphere” aspect of time hints at the idea of a spherical oscillator as a basic entity. This latter idea, has become a part of the  basis of a variant of Motion in a Matrix Modelling called the “Oscillator/Substance Model.”

The “Oscillator Substance” model, although developed independently, echoes Max Planck’s ideas of dots controlled by oscillators and is the product of theorizing by chemist who was once trained as an electronic technician. who has put together insights from both fields to suggest that there is a very simple model of everything which perhaps would have been close to the “Unified Field Theory” which Einstein spent his life trying to develop but could not.* However, since, we are focused on where Einstein was right, or wrong, we should note the errors that probably doomed Einstein’s quest for a “Unified Field” from the start.

It is highly probable that the “First Fatal Error” in Einstein’s Unified Field attempt was that he “Threw out the field.”  That is, he assumed a void, a nothingness, for the “Field” to operate in.  The “Second Fatal Error” is one that modern theorists continue to make. They try to set up a unified field theory from the “Four Fundamental Forces.”  The problem is that the “Four Fundamental Forces” all violate the Law of Forces, “For each and every force there is an equal and opposite force.”  This law of forces, if examined carefully, can be interpreted to clearly indicate that any “Force” is simply a readjustment of pressures within a “substance.” The “Four Fundamental Forces” are  either, in two cases (Gravitation and Electro-Magnetism) descriptions of observed phenomena, which are the result of other factors, These kind of “Forces” are known as “Fictional Forces,” the best known, and best explained of which is “Centrifugal Force.”  The other two “Fundamental Forces,” the “Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces” appear to be simply imaginative explanations which arise as justification for the idea that neutrons exist, as such, in atomic nuclei. A much simpler explanation appears if one  considers atomic nuclei to be electron-proton aggregates in which a neutron has, at the best, potential existence. Einstein’s frustration was apparently caused by his operating on sets of erroneous ideas.

In the next couple of paragraphs will appear a statement, which Einstein could have published, a logical outgrowth of Planck’s ideas, Which might have kept us from almost a century of what this writer considers “semi-mystical nonsense” in scientific theory.

”Let us assume as a working hypothesis that there exists a ‘dot matrix’ of separable oscillators. These. in turn are collected to form a ‘substance’ at its ‘triple-point,’ of larger separable oscillator entities capable of correlating motion and of separation into the electron-anti-electron set and distortion into neutrons.”   Amplifications of the ideas in this statement, and corollaries, can give explanations for electrons, protons, the expanding universe, “The Big Bang” and almost any other phenomenon to which it has been applied. It is this working hypothesis which has led to the explanations of “Mass” and “Energy” which have been used throughout this paper.

Why was Einstein right?  When he was, it was almost as much luck as brilliance. The hidden implications of the mathematics which matched reality made the theorizing seem to fit, even when the basic ideas erred. Had he gone in a different direction, following up the ideas of Max Planck, he might have reached the same basic conclusions as the “Oscillator Substance Model” which has arrived nearly a century late, and will probably be ignored.

Post Script: Although this writer finds the Oscillator Substance approach so natural and useful as to feel that it should be common knowledge, the discovery of this possible “Explanation of Everything” is only a few months old. The ideas may wait some years longer for confirmation or disproof.  What information published about it is, thus far, is almost exclusively on Helium.com. or  a Google Group Site, Oscillator/Substance Theory and the “primary investigator,” has no professional standing as a member of any research institution or group.  To me, it is sad that a young, patent clerk could not have reached these conclusions in the early 1900’s rather than  a very elderly day-laborer a century later….

Now, if a certain “String Theorist,” considered to be the greatest genius of our time, were to have happened to have come up with this… Oh, well, we can’t have a perfect world!

Einstein was very right to try to explain the workings of reality, it appears, however,  that he made a few key mistakes.

_

## 4 thoughts on “Why Einstein was Right”

1. barakn says:

Once again Dean tries to convince us that (vm^2)/2 is energy. It doesn’t have the units of energy, it is not energy, and repeating the claim in post after post is not going to change that. The rest of article is of similar quality – a complete waste of time.

2. Anonymous says:

Yes

3. Hugh Vreeland says:

To say that Dr. S’s Energy Expression, (vm^2)/2 is not a type of energy expression because the units do not seem to match, is probably much like saying, “That is not a leopard, I cannot see any spots.” It may also fall into the category of saying, “A bonobo is a Chimpanzee. take a good look at one. ” The spots of melanistic leopards can be seen only if light happens to strike them at the right angles and there is a good deal of DNA evidence that either Bonobos (also known as the “Pygmy Chimpanzee of Zaire) should be classified as in Genus Homo, or humans should be classified in Genus Pan. In mathematics and physics, as well as in biology, appearances and labels may be deceiving.

Doc’s contention is that both (mv^2)/2 and (vm^2)/2 are “energy expressions” since both arise from legitimate, alternate ways of integrating the momentum equation, mv=p=vm. He also notes in one paper, that one can also integrate “p” as an entirety to obtain the expression, (p^2)/2. which when we insert the original “mv=p=vm” fact, gives us (m^2 x v^2)/2. Here in lies the key to the reason that the two energy expressions differ in form. In the process of integration, one of the variables was “held constant,” that is taken out of real consideration except as a “scalar number” in the process. However, it is still a variable, a vector quantity which should be included in the result. The true descriptor for both energy expression should be the one found when “p” was integrated as a unit and the definition of “p” reinserted. In the cgs system the true units of what is going on when we talk about the motion energy of a unit would be ( g^2 cm^2 )/2 or mass times the “conventional energy expression” or velocity times “Doc’s expression.” Looked at either way the concepts of mass, energy and velocity are inter-tangled.

As the energy, or motion content, of a moving body in a medium of which it is part–assuming here the the Oscillator/Substance Model is probably valid–will consist of two parts, the vibrational-rotational motions within the unit, and the motion disturbances caused by the motion of the entire body along a line, there may well be two “Energy Expressions” of the same form but actually arising from different views of momentum because of the two differing types of motions involved. If we assume this to be true, the total motion content i.e. energy would be 2(m^2 x v^2)/2, which equals (m^2 x v^2). Evaluating this at the Speed of Light, whether it be a limit or an average would then give the expression, m^2 x c^2 for the Energy content of a particle rather than the mc^2 value usually accepted.

Taking this even farther from the fact that the Absolute Values of variables can be interchanged when they are related by an equation of the type, xy=K=yx, one can postulate that the maximum motion content possible of a particle moving at the Speed of Light would be c^4 or about 8.l x 10^4l (g^2 x cm^2)/2.

4. dean sinclair says:

Thanks, Hugh
Thanks for taking the time to comment.

I like your explanation. I think tho, I’d better note one little error before Barak sees it and throws out the whole thing on that basis alone.:) The very, last little expression has one word, “sec.” left out. Where it says, “/2” you clearly mean “/sec.^2.”