**Einstein and Relativity - Joke Or Swindle**

**by Alan R. Foos**

http://foosresearch.appspot.com

http://foosresearch.appspot.com

**This is a subject I've broached once in a while in the vain hope of bringing light to the world. The above title is not mine originally, but borrowed from a book by Louis Essen, the first person to accurately measure the speed of light, for his criticism of Einstein's relativity. Like Herbert Dingle and many others, he quite rightly pointed out that the logic of relativity was patently absurd. Wrongly thinking that people would welcome the truth and congratulate him for making things clear, Essen instead lost a Nobel Prize that was rightfully his. The powers that be issued their verdict in special edition of Nature Magazine, overruling sanity in favor of Einstein's, making a mockery of common sense and forever dooming physics to madness. The scam exploited a simple fact of logic and observation that Newton and most everyone had missed and that Einstein exploited well. Swindle or joke, either applies, but herein lies the only correct explanation you will find.**

That relativity was a hustle hit me the first time I heard Denny Lee, popular physics lecturer at Montana State, give his lecture on relativity in 1972. I was a friend and admirer of Denny's and an A student, so I paid careful attention as always. When Denny got to the famous Twin Paradox, I raised my hand in class and pointed out that going by the first postulate of relativity, each of the twin's clocks would have to be ticking slower than the other if uniform motion was the cause of one twin being younger than the other. Ordinarily being a very smart and straightforward fellow, Denny dodged a real answer, saying that the best answer was too advanced for freshman physics but had to do with acceleration and deceleration. Did you smell a rat? But this was science, the rightful God of mankind.

I wouldn't know for another 30 years that this was the crux of Dingle's heated attacks on Einstein and special relativity in the early 1900's. Dingle was a member of the Royal Society and President of the Royal Astronomical Society. He was clearly right about relativity being nonsensical, but still publicly discredited. His critique was best expressed in his book titled Science At The Crossroads, a very worthy read. I've never fully understood why the higher powers and the media ignored the relativistic sham, choosing instead to exploited the confusion and make a legend out of Einstein. It seems that politics is most effective when you can keep the common man confused. If that's you, here's your chance to overcome blindness.

Since then, every critic of Einstein has been dismissed out of hand as a crackpot. Indeed, many have been. Dingle and Essen were eminently prominent and competent physicists, so how then can I possibly succeed when every they suffered public humiliation and had their careers dashed on the rocks? Even if I could most plainly convey the falsehood of relativity, only 1 person in 1,000 is educated enough to follow the argument, only 1 in 1,000 of those cares to try, only 1 in 1,000 of those would ruin his public prestige by admitting it. I, too, insignificant as I am, have been mocked and ridiculed and banned for speaking up. If indeed you have the benefit of a good point, there will be no fair debate, they'll just shut you out. Nevertheless, I'm your Huckleberry and a great fan of the little poem, Don't You Quit: http://www.psalm40.org/dontquit.html. The last line is "It's when things seem worst that you must not quit," so here's Nobody talking to Nobody.

So why am I your Huckleberry? There are two reasons. The first is my academic training, even though that ended 40 years ago. For several tough years at Montana State University I spent more than 14 hours a day ignoring unpaid bills while solving math and science problems. By the end of that time I'd became proficient in perceiving core concepts of math and science problems and setting up efficient solutions. Sometimes I went beyond the limits of the question to a bottom line. Some instructors were impressed and yet others subtracted points. You can be penalized for knowing too much, or at least showing it, and that's the only reason I was slightly short of an overall 4.00 in grad school.

The second reason follows suit in that nobody, not even Dingle or Essen, ever recognized and addressed the key legitimate concept at the core of Einstein's hustle. To effectively refute Einstein, it would be most helpful to do what seems to have never been done, to bypass the contradictory logic and convoluted mathematics and set out to clarify the essential physical phenomenon. It was the failure of others to address the matter of clock speed that Einstein gleefully exploited with his relativity razzle dazzle. If the crux of the issue was properly set forth, any competent mathematician such as myself would be armed with a simple mathematical procedure to solve any of the questions related to relativity. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist," the excuse physics.com used to ban me, but a person who knows what he's talking about, likely the only one you'll ever know who can explain the crux of the matter, so read on.

Just forgive the excess verbiage used. I'll avoid addressing the slick confusion of relativity which promises to mire us hopelessly and get right to the point quickly. Einstein himself once meekly admitted like Denny Lee, under intense pressure, that the answer to the Twin Paradox was in the matter of acceleration and deceleration, not uniform motion, but he stated that he didn't know how else to calculate the solutions. Certainly, he did admit to a ruse. The way he arrived at a mathematical solution to clock speed was by use of the bogus Lorentz transformations that had earlier proposed a contraction of length and time due to uniform motion. In other words, on the bottom line, Albert knew knew his theory wasn't the real deal, science wasn't required to be real in his view. Either he wasn't good enough to do it right or realized that by being devious he could trick the masses into believing he was the greatest genius of all time, the Muhammad Ali of physics. Truly, as good a hustler as he was, he could have done it right, but that wouldn't have embedded him so firmly in the history books. But we can fix that now. The simple answer shouldn't take more than a couple of paragraphs, but please keep in mind that it takes time getting to the point. Give me your hear. Dumb as I am and banned for life by physics.com, I am 100% right, not a crackpot, and that makes me the greatest scientist of all time, call me Muhammad Al, NOT a crackpot, but...

I AM THE GREATEST, Muhammad Al

Would you like up front proof of the problem solving proficiency honed at MSU Bozeman in the 70s? Good grades aren't enough. A concept requiring advanced insight and exceptional mathematical skill to prove would do. That's why I carried forward the formulas for an original statistical theorem I discovered in 1978, putting them in various computer formats and finally into a nicely done flipbook in 2016. This can be seen at http://foosresearch.appspot.com. The link will NOT work if your social media puts an s after the http as does Facebook, so you may have to type it directly into your browser URL. The browser also must have Adobe Flash player ability. Hundreds of universities have examined it and downloaded a copy, but the only comment I've garnered was a charge of plagiarism. Not so, the idea was mine and mine alone. Why so many people go there I haven't a clue.

What is promised here is a far simpler task, to prove relativity to be a farce and by substituting a single elementary concept that requires no more than a few paragraphs, to go where no man has gone before, to do what no great scientist has done before, to explain the concept and derive an elegant, complete and concise mathematical solution. It is unnecessary and deadly tedious to address each and every issue in physics that has been touched by relativity, but it is a fact that ALL such issues or experiments can be understood and solved with the Foos approach. To illustrate it best, we will use it now to give the exact, non relativistic solution to the Pound-Rebka experiment which was falsely portrayed to be a crucial verification of general relativity. After that, we will employ the same concept to explain the Hafele-Keating experiment which was falsely considered to be a crucial confirmation of the special theory.

Thank you for your continued patience with the excess verbiage. I feel obligated to explain what led to the scam as well as provide the correct mathematical solution. Following the example of Einstein's presentation of his Special Theory of Relativity, let us replace his two contradictory postulates with two essential postulates of Alan Foos, the first aptly stated as Foos's Special Law of Spacetime:

Foos's Special Law of Spacetime: Clock speed varies in direct proportion to Newton's potential energy, PE.

This follows from the observation of the famous blue/red shift and time delay for light rays passing near the sun. The farce of relativity probably stemmed from the correct cause of gravity being an ether medium of high velocity particles. The ether became an unpopular idea early on because no physical construction could directly measure it, and some scientists insisted that if ether was the cause of gravity then friction would generate immense heat. Let's set that aside that argument and just state that light appears to enter a denser medium when approaching a body of mass, causing it to slow as well as introducing an additional refraction that doubled Soldner's original proof. From the standpoint of a fixed observer, light slows (less than c) and its frequency shifts towards the blue when passing a large body of mass,, and when moving away the reverse occurs. Note that this behavior is opposite the common experience of Newtonian mechanics that governs the motion of an object thrown into the air. A crucial point, however, is that the speed of a horizontal beam of light will be measured as c by any observer at any elevation. The value of c is constant in that respect only. The only explanation to these observations is that a clock runs more slowly at a lower elevation. It shouldn't take an Einstein to see this fact, it is the only explanation that can be arrived at.

CHECKPOINT: This fact is also the essential feature to Einstein's general relativity, so this point MUST be understood. I hate to dwell on it, but think, please. If guy A on mount Everest measures a horizontal beam of light, it is exactly c. If he measures a beam of light travelling towards guy B at sea level, he finds it is less than c. Guy B also measure its speed between A and B as less than c; however, guy B measures the horizontal speed of the same beam of light as c, while both arrive at c for the two way path of the beam of light. The ONLY explanation is that B's clock is running more slowly than A's and that the length of a meter for B is shorter to the same degree his clock is slower. This is the crucial concept. The erroneous impression of the common man that c must always be the same is an obstacle to this understanding. Also, normally, if something was to accelerate when going upwards, it would reasonably require some sort of invisible push, a gain in momentum. We know however, that there is no push and that the perceived speed along the path of light must remain constant. For this to be true, the wavelength of an upward traveling beam of light must shrink to the same degree that the clock speeds up. If you can't grasp how that works, you will have trouble getting the crucial point. Also, will be pointed out again later, the definition of a meter is the number of wavelengths of a spectral line in a given amount of time; therefore, the length of a meter must get proportionally greater as the beam travels upward.

Again, Foos's Special Law of Spacetime: Clock speed varies in direct proportion to gravitational force (Newton's potential energy, PE).

This is NOT my invention or idea, just credit ne for drawing attention to an obvious fact. It is Mother Nature's essential law of space and time that overrules Einstein's kooky notions and complicated equations (and not Nature Magazine). If you consider that fact long enough, you will realize that this single, simple but subtle, fact embodies and accounts for all physical phenomena that Einstein lamely claimed credit for discovering. But the concept was deliberately bungled with the special theory of relativity that attributed changes in clock speed and linear dimension to be the result of uniform motion. The contrived and grossly awkward formulas were empty of any true physical meaning, offering fraudulent cause and at best indirect solution to the gravitational effects of acceleration and deceleration. The uniform motion claim led to the famous "Twin Paradox" where a travelling man stays younger than his stay at home twin. The furious oppostion led by Dingle led to a weak moment where Einstein admitted that the traveling twin was younger as the result of the train accelerating and decelerating. But the world had already grown deaf and blind. To this day human society is bent on demonstrating the absurd to illustrate the genius of Einstein. The accepted infallibility of Einstein's relativity became entrenched. Einstein became history's greatest legend for making uncanny predictions based on incomprehensible logic. The first postulate of relativity, that either clock could be considered in motion or at rest, made the special relativity that followed a Rocky Mountain Boo Boo and the masses who believed it foos, the collective butt of a cruel joke.

As empty of meaning the Lorentz equations were, they could, as Einstein mush have known, be inappropriately twisted to conform to experimental results and so bewilder the common man. The Foos Law of Spacetime states that (in an apparent vacuum) a stronger gravitational force causes clocks to run more slowly, not uniform motion, and, of course, acceleration and deceleration cause equivalent gravitational forces which cause a clock to tick more slowly. That's all the essence there is to the other feats of Einstein. Of critical importance is how length is defined. Scientific heads long ago abandoned the use of a metal bar kept at constant temperature in a room in Paris to establish the length of a meter because even that cannot be precise. The only natural and exact method of establishing a stable meter is to define it as the number of wavelengths of a defined spectrum of light over a period of time, you can verify that this is the agreed up, current and final decree of "science" for yourself. The fact that a blueshift combined with a timeshift changes the length of a meter only as reckoned by a remote observer is never mentioned in the physics classroom. Students, if they want a PhD, are required to commit intellectual suicide and sing the song of Einstein:

Harken! If the clock slows down, then the same number of wavelengths travel a proportional distance less; therefore, it follows as a physical fact that as the clock slows down, distance must shrink. This is not a fact of experience because everything else shrinks in the local frame, but a remote, stationary observer who stays at home or sits on a mountain will observe that your meter is shorter than his and your watch slower. Again, another related change in measurement (also not experienced locally but seen by a stationary observer) is a proportional reduction in the speed of light offset by a "blueshift" going down and a "redshift" going up. If the photon's momentum and own measure of c is to be preserved, it follows that there must be a shift in frequency that counters a shift in velocity. In the photon's "frame of reference," to borrow a bad term, there are no discernible changes in velocity, distances, frequency or clock speed because changes in distances are offset by clock speed and frequency. The "laws of physics remain the same." It may take some time to visualize how this works, but pondering it is the key to understanding how time and space works, not relativity or the magical buzzword "spacetime."

Now are you ready for the math? To beat the relativity hocus pocus, we have to derive a formula that allows us to accurately calculate these effects. So let's stop talking and shoot. Do this. Jot down the knowns at the top of your page in pencil, PE=m*g*h. We know that Newton's PE, potential energy, accurately gives us the energy of impact for a falling body of mass, and we know that all changes in light frequency, clock speed, length or any related measurement must be proportional to the same difference in PE between any two points. Now formulate the correct solution using the next line.

We can't appropriately use the classic PE=m*g*h formula because light has no mass and actually decreases in velocity (not locally, but from a fixed point of view) as it travels downward. The energy corresponding to changes in light speed and frequency have to be expressed in terms of a corresponding fractional reduction in light energy over the distance in question. Since mass is not relevant, we have to drop the g term. we know that the energy change must include the other two variables g (acceleration due to gravity) and h (the distance between two elevations). We'll call this reduction CF, or correction factor, until we finish constructing the term. These should be the 2nd and 3rd lines on your page beneath the known PE equation above it. Where E (sub 0) is initial energy and E (sub 1) final energy,

E (sub 1) = E (sub 0) - E (sub 1) * g * h / ?

We know that CF has to include the product of g, the gravitational constant, and h, the distance between the upper and lower elevations, it is also must represent the fractional reduction in energy between the two elevations and have no dimensions. The dimensions of g*h in SI units are meters per seconds squared times times meters, or s^2 / t^2 where s is distance and t is time or in units meters squared / seconds squared. Thus, our numerator is the square of the change in velocity between the two elevations, and so our denominator must be the square of the initial, maximum value of c, or c^2. Therefore, your fourth and FINAL line should be written:

E (sub 1) = E (sub 0) - E (sub 1) * g * h / c^2

That relativity was a hustle hit me the first time I heard Denny Lee, popular physics lecturer at Montana State, give his lecture on relativity in 1972. I was a friend and admirer of Denny's and an A student, so I paid careful attention as always. When Denny got to the famous Twin Paradox, I raised my hand in class and pointed out that going by the first postulate of relativity, each of the twin's clocks would have to be ticking slower than the other if uniform motion was the cause of one twin being younger than the other. Ordinarily being a very smart and straightforward fellow, Denny dodged a real answer, saying that the best answer was too advanced for freshman physics but had to do with acceleration and deceleration. Did you smell a rat? But this was science, the rightful God of mankind.

I wouldn't know for another 30 years that this was the crux of Dingle's heated attacks on Einstein and special relativity in the early 1900's. Dingle was a member of the Royal Society and President of the Royal Astronomical Society. He was clearly right about relativity being nonsensical, but still publicly discredited. His critique was best expressed in his book titled Science At The Crossroads, a very worthy read. I've never fully understood why the higher powers and the media ignored the relativistic sham, choosing instead to exploited the confusion and make a legend out of Einstein. It seems that politics is most effective when you can keep the common man confused. If that's you, here's your chance to overcome blindness.

Since then, every critic of Einstein has been dismissed out of hand as a crackpot. Indeed, many have been. Dingle and Essen were eminently prominent and competent physicists, so how then can I possibly succeed when every they suffered public humiliation and had their careers dashed on the rocks? Even if I could most plainly convey the falsehood of relativity, only 1 person in 1,000 is educated enough to follow the argument, only 1 in 1,000 of those cares to try, only 1 in 1,000 of those would ruin his public prestige by admitting it. I, too, insignificant as I am, have been mocked and ridiculed and banned for speaking up. If indeed you have the benefit of a good point, there will be no fair debate, they'll just shut you out. Nevertheless, I'm your Huckleberry and a great fan of the little poem, Don't You Quit: http://www.psalm40.org/dontquit.html. The last line is "It's when things seem worst that you must not quit," so here's Nobody talking to Nobody.

So why am I your Huckleberry? There are two reasons. The first is my academic training, even though that ended 40 years ago. For several tough years at Montana State University I spent more than 14 hours a day ignoring unpaid bills while solving math and science problems. By the end of that time I'd became proficient in perceiving core concepts of math and science problems and setting up efficient solutions. Sometimes I went beyond the limits of the question to a bottom line. Some instructors were impressed and yet others subtracted points. You can be penalized for knowing too much, or at least showing it, and that's the only reason I was slightly short of an overall 4.00 in grad school.

The second reason follows suit in that nobody, not even Dingle or Essen, ever recognized and addressed the key legitimate concept at the core of Einstein's hustle. To effectively refute Einstein, it would be most helpful to do what seems to have never been done, to bypass the contradictory logic and convoluted mathematics and set out to clarify the essential physical phenomenon. It was the failure of others to address the matter of clock speed that Einstein gleefully exploited with his relativity razzle dazzle. If the crux of the issue was properly set forth, any competent mathematician such as myself would be armed with a simple mathematical procedure to solve any of the questions related to relativity. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist," the excuse physics.com used to ban me, but a person who knows what he's talking about, likely the only one you'll ever know who can explain the crux of the matter, so read on.

Just forgive the excess verbiage used. I'll avoid addressing the slick confusion of relativity which promises to mire us hopelessly and get right to the point quickly. Einstein himself once meekly admitted like Denny Lee, under intense pressure, that the answer to the Twin Paradox was in the matter of acceleration and deceleration, not uniform motion, but he stated that he didn't know how else to calculate the solutions. Certainly, he did admit to a ruse. The way he arrived at a mathematical solution to clock speed was by use of the bogus Lorentz transformations that had earlier proposed a contraction of length and time due to uniform motion. In other words, on the bottom line, Albert knew knew his theory wasn't the real deal, science wasn't required to be real in his view. Either he wasn't good enough to do it right or realized that by being devious he could trick the masses into believing he was the greatest genius of all time, the Muhammad Ali of physics. Truly, as good a hustler as he was, he could have done it right, but that wouldn't have embedded him so firmly in the history books. But we can fix that now. The simple answer shouldn't take more than a couple of paragraphs, but please keep in mind that it takes time getting to the point. Give me your hear. Dumb as I am and banned for life by physics.com, I am 100% right, not a crackpot, and that makes me the greatest scientist of all time, call me Muhammad Al, NOT a crackpot, but...

I AM THE GREATEST, Muhammad Al

Would you like up front proof of the problem solving proficiency honed at MSU Bozeman in the 70s? Good grades aren't enough. A concept requiring advanced insight and exceptional mathematical skill to prove would do. That's why I carried forward the formulas for an original statistical theorem I discovered in 1978, putting them in various computer formats and finally into a nicely done flipbook in 2016. This can be seen at http://foosresearch.appspot.com. The link will NOT work if your social media puts an s after the http as does Facebook, so you may have to type it directly into your browser URL. The browser also must have Adobe Flash player ability. Hundreds of universities have examined it and downloaded a copy, but the only comment I've garnered was a charge of plagiarism. Not so, the idea was mine and mine alone. Why so many people go there I haven't a clue.

What is promised here is a far simpler task, to prove relativity to be a farce and by substituting a single elementary concept that requires no more than a few paragraphs, to go where no man has gone before, to do what no great scientist has done before, to explain the concept and derive an elegant, complete and concise mathematical solution. It is unnecessary and deadly tedious to address each and every issue in physics that has been touched by relativity, but it is a fact that ALL such issues or experiments can be understood and solved with the Foos approach. To illustrate it best, we will use it now to give the exact, non relativistic solution to the Pound-Rebka experiment which was falsely portrayed to be a crucial verification of general relativity. After that, we will employ the same concept to explain the Hafele-Keating experiment which was falsely considered to be a crucial confirmation of the special theory.

**The Crux of the Relativity Hoax**

Substituting The Real Facts For Einstein's Convoluted TheoriesSubstituting The Real Facts For Einstein's Convoluted Theories

Thank you for your continued patience with the excess verbiage. I feel obligated to explain what led to the scam as well as provide the correct mathematical solution. Following the example of Einstein's presentation of his Special Theory of Relativity, let us replace his two contradictory postulates with two essential postulates of Alan Foos, the first aptly stated as Foos's Special Law of Spacetime:

Foos's Special Law of Spacetime: Clock speed varies in direct proportion to Newton's potential energy, PE.

This follows from the observation of the famous blue/red shift and time delay for light rays passing near the sun. The farce of relativity probably stemmed from the correct cause of gravity being an ether medium of high velocity particles. The ether became an unpopular idea early on because no physical construction could directly measure it, and some scientists insisted that if ether was the cause of gravity then friction would generate immense heat. Let's set that aside that argument and just state that light appears to enter a denser medium when approaching a body of mass, causing it to slow as well as introducing an additional refraction that doubled Soldner's original proof. From the standpoint of a fixed observer, light slows (less than c) and its frequency shifts towards the blue when passing a large body of mass,, and when moving away the reverse occurs. Note that this behavior is opposite the common experience of Newtonian mechanics that governs the motion of an object thrown into the air. A crucial point, however, is that the speed of a horizontal beam of light will be measured as c by any observer at any elevation. The value of c is constant in that respect only. The only explanation to these observations is that a clock runs more slowly at a lower elevation. It shouldn't take an Einstein to see this fact, it is the only explanation that can be arrived at.

CHECKPOINT: This fact is also the essential feature to Einstein's general relativity, so this point MUST be understood. I hate to dwell on it, but think, please. If guy A on mount Everest measures a horizontal beam of light, it is exactly c. If he measures a beam of light travelling towards guy B at sea level, he finds it is less than c. Guy B also measure its speed between A and B as less than c; however, guy B measures the horizontal speed of the same beam of light as c, while both arrive at c for the two way path of the beam of light. The ONLY explanation is that B's clock is running more slowly than A's and that the length of a meter for B is shorter to the same degree his clock is slower. This is the crucial concept. The erroneous impression of the common man that c must always be the same is an obstacle to this understanding. Also, normally, if something was to accelerate when going upwards, it would reasonably require some sort of invisible push, a gain in momentum. We know however, that there is no push and that the perceived speed along the path of light must remain constant. For this to be true, the wavelength of an upward traveling beam of light must shrink to the same degree that the clock speeds up. If you can't grasp how that works, you will have trouble getting the crucial point. Also, will be pointed out again later, the definition of a meter is the number of wavelengths of a spectral line in a given amount of time; therefore, the length of a meter must get proportionally greater as the beam travels upward.

Again, Foos's Special Law of Spacetime: Clock speed varies in direct proportion to gravitational force (Newton's potential energy, PE).

This is NOT my invention or idea, just credit ne for drawing attention to an obvious fact. It is Mother Nature's essential law of space and time that overrules Einstein's kooky notions and complicated equations (and not Nature Magazine). If you consider that fact long enough, you will realize that this single, simple but subtle, fact embodies and accounts for all physical phenomena that Einstein lamely claimed credit for discovering. But the concept was deliberately bungled with the special theory of relativity that attributed changes in clock speed and linear dimension to be the result of uniform motion. The contrived and grossly awkward formulas were empty of any true physical meaning, offering fraudulent cause and at best indirect solution to the gravitational effects of acceleration and deceleration. The uniform motion claim led to the famous "Twin Paradox" where a travelling man stays younger than his stay at home twin. The furious oppostion led by Dingle led to a weak moment where Einstein admitted that the traveling twin was younger as the result of the train accelerating and decelerating. But the world had already grown deaf and blind. To this day human society is bent on demonstrating the absurd to illustrate the genius of Einstein. The accepted infallibility of Einstein's relativity became entrenched. Einstein became history's greatest legend for making uncanny predictions based on incomprehensible logic. The first postulate of relativity, that either clock could be considered in motion or at rest, made the special relativity that followed a Rocky Mountain Boo Boo and the masses who believed it foos, the collective butt of a cruel joke.

As empty of meaning the Lorentz equations were, they could, as Einstein mush have known, be inappropriately twisted to conform to experimental results and so bewilder the common man. The Foos Law of Spacetime states that (in an apparent vacuum) a stronger gravitational force causes clocks to run more slowly, not uniform motion, and, of course, acceleration and deceleration cause equivalent gravitational forces which cause a clock to tick more slowly. That's all the essence there is to the other feats of Einstein. Of critical importance is how length is defined. Scientific heads long ago abandoned the use of a metal bar kept at constant temperature in a room in Paris to establish the length of a meter because even that cannot be precise. The only natural and exact method of establishing a stable meter is to define it as the number of wavelengths of a defined spectrum of light over a period of time, you can verify that this is the agreed up, current and final decree of "science" for yourself. The fact that a blueshift combined with a timeshift changes the length of a meter only as reckoned by a remote observer is never mentioned in the physics classroom. Students, if they want a PhD, are required to commit intellectual suicide and sing the song of Einstein:

**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ**Harken! If the clock slows down, then the same number of wavelengths travel a proportional distance less; therefore, it follows as a physical fact that as the clock slows down, distance must shrink. This is not a fact of experience because everything else shrinks in the local frame, but a remote, stationary observer who stays at home or sits on a mountain will observe that your meter is shorter than his and your watch slower. Again, another related change in measurement (also not experienced locally but seen by a stationary observer) is a proportional reduction in the speed of light offset by a "blueshift" going down and a "redshift" going up. If the photon's momentum and own measure of c is to be preserved, it follows that there must be a shift in frequency that counters a shift in velocity. In the photon's "frame of reference," to borrow a bad term, there are no discernible changes in velocity, distances, frequency or clock speed because changes in distances are offset by clock speed and frequency. The "laws of physics remain the same." It may take some time to visualize how this works, but pondering it is the key to understanding how time and space works, not relativity or the magical buzzword "spacetime."

Now are you ready for the math? To beat the relativity hocus pocus, we have to derive a formula that allows us to accurately calculate these effects. So let's stop talking and shoot. Do this. Jot down the knowns at the top of your page in pencil, PE=m*g*h. We know that Newton's PE, potential energy, accurately gives us the energy of impact for a falling body of mass, and we know that all changes in light frequency, clock speed, length or any related measurement must be proportional to the same difference in PE between any two points. Now formulate the correct solution using the next line.

We can't appropriately use the classic PE=m*g*h formula because light has no mass and actually decreases in velocity (not locally, but from a fixed point of view) as it travels downward. The energy corresponding to changes in light speed and frequency have to be expressed in terms of a corresponding fractional reduction in light energy over the distance in question. Since mass is not relevant, we have to drop the g term. we know that the energy change must include the other two variables g (acceleration due to gravity) and h (the distance between two elevations). We'll call this reduction CF, or correction factor, until we finish constructing the term. These should be the 2nd and 3rd lines on your page beneath the known PE equation above it. Where E (sub 0) is initial energy and E (sub 1) final energy,

**E (sub 1) = E (sub 0) - E (sub 0) * CF**E (sub 1) = E (sub 0) - E (sub 1) * g * h / ?

We know that CF has to include the product of g, the gravitational constant, and h, the distance between the upper and lower elevations, it is also must represent the fractional reduction in energy between the two elevations and have no dimensions. The dimensions of g*h in SI units are meters per seconds squared times times meters, or s^2 / t^2 where s is distance and t is time or in units meters squared / seconds squared. Thus, our numerator is the square of the change in velocity between the two elevations, and so our denominator must be the square of the initial, maximum value of c, or c^2. Therefore, your fourth and FINAL line should be written:

E (sub 1) = E (sub 0) - E (sub 1) * g * h / c^2

**If you've suffered through the complicated steps to solve my statistical theorem at http://foosresearch.appspot.com, you'll see that the answer to relativity is child's play. This is the long and short solution of the problem made dramatically more complicated and twisted by Einstein and his followers. Do NOT read Bertrand Russell's pretend intellectual work, "The ABC of Relativity) unless you want to further compound your confusion. A man that mocked the reality of the Christian God himself caught promoting a fraud.**

Got it now? Take a break. What have we said? In verbal terms we can state with confidence that the fractional reduction in light energy (equivalent as in terms of frequency, distance, or clock speed) between two elevations is the initial energy E (sub 0) times g (acceleration due to gravity) times distance divided by c squared. This is all that is required to solve any problem posed that might be claimed by relativity.

Now, we're able to shoot down anything purportedly explained by relativity, from black holes to expanding universes, but let's just pick the two experiments widely considered crucial to the proof of special relativity (uniform motion) and general relativity (gravity). First we tackle the celebrated Pound-Rebka experiment purportedly used to confirm Einstein's general theory. Don't peek at the wiki page yet. First, consider our own experiment to measure the fractional change in clock speed (also frequency or light velocity) over a distance of 22.5 meters using the brutally simple formula we just derived from the fact that clock speed varies with potential energy. For the correction factor CF, multiply 9.8 meters per second squared, the value of g, times 22.5 meters and divide that by the square of the accepted speed of light. You should see the result: 2.45339... times ten to the negative power of fifteen. Now, go to this wiki page which describes the Pound-Rebka experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PoundE28093Rebka_experiment. The same figure is cited on that page.

The Pound-Rebka experiment was done to see if the Doppler shift of an accelerated beam of light over that same distance matches the same value purportedly predicted by Einstein's relativity due to a change in clock speed. We explained perfectly well ourselves how and why clock speed varies with elevation without relativity? Except for the same, simple equation that looks like ours above, the formulas used on the wiki page are not relevant or necessary to the question. These looking forbiddingly complicated, hauntingly similar to the Lorentz expressions, and as usual there is no attempt to explain any of them because there is no relativistic explanation that could be properly understood. The only point of the experiment is whether the measured redshift is matched by the Doppler shift and whether it confirms the fractional change in frequency calculated by the formula gh/(c^2) we ourselves have derived. The the ONLY statement in the wiki article that means anything is this: "The frac

Got it now? Take a break. What have we said? In verbal terms we can state with confidence that the fractional reduction in light energy (equivalent as in terms of frequency, distance, or clock speed) between two elevations is the initial energy E (sub 0) times g (acceleration due to gravity) times distance divided by c squared. This is all that is required to solve any problem posed that might be claimed by relativity.

Now, we're able to shoot down anything purportedly explained by relativity, from black holes to expanding universes, but let's just pick the two experiments widely considered crucial to the proof of special relativity (uniform motion) and general relativity (gravity). First we tackle the celebrated Pound-Rebka experiment purportedly used to confirm Einstein's general theory. Don't peek at the wiki page yet. First, consider our own experiment to measure the fractional change in clock speed (also frequency or light velocity) over a distance of 22.5 meters using the brutally simple formula we just derived from the fact that clock speed varies with potential energy. For the correction factor CF, multiply 9.8 meters per second squared, the value of g, times 22.5 meters and divide that by the square of the accepted speed of light. You should see the result: 2.45339... times ten to the negative power of fifteen. Now, go to this wiki page which describes the Pound-Rebka experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PoundE28093Rebka_experiment. The same figure is cited on that page.

The Pound-Rebka experiment was done to see if the Doppler shift of an accelerated beam of light over that same distance matches the same value purportedly predicted by Einstein's relativity due to a change in clock speed. We explained perfectly well ourselves how and why clock speed varies with elevation without relativity? Except for the same, simple equation that looks like ours above, the formulas used on the wiki page are not relevant or necessary to the question. These looking forbiddingly complicated, hauntingly similar to the Lorentz expressions, and as usual there is no attempt to explain any of them because there is no relativistic explanation that could be properly understood. The only point of the experiment is whether the measured redshift is matched by the Doppler shift and whether it confirms the fractional change in frequency calculated by the formula gh/(c^2) we ourselves have derived. The the ONLY statement in the wiki article that means anything is this: "The frac