Death to Einstein!: The Video Transcripts, Volume One

Books by Scott Reeves

The Big City

Demonspawn

Billy Barnaby’s Twisted Christmas

The Dream of an Ancient God

The Last Legend

Inferno: Go to Hell

Scruffy Unleashed: A Novella

Colony

A Hijacked Life

The Dawkins Delusion

The Newer New Revelations

Apocalyptus Interruptus

Death to Einstein!

The House at the Center of the Worlds

The Miracle Brigade

Tales of Science Fiction

Tales of Fantasy

The Chronicles of Varuk: Book One

The Compleat Snowybrook Inn

Liberal vs. Conservative: A Novella

A Crackpot’s Notebook, Volume 1

Zombie Galaxy: The Outbreak on Caldor

Flames of the Sun

Death to Einstein!

The Video Transcripts

Volume One

Scott Reeves

Death to Einstein! The Video Transcripts, Volume One

Copyright © 2017 by Scott Reeves.

All rights reserved.

Interior art by Scott Reeves,

Copyright © 2017 by Scott Reeves.

Introduction

Over the past several years, I have been keeping a video log of my thoughts on Relativity and Geocentricity. For the most part, they are a continuation of, a further development of, and an elaboration upon, ideas presented in my book Death to Einstein! I have now amassed a hundred or more hours of video, and have begun the laborious process of transcribing them. So the present volume represents the first batch of such transcripts. Some of them I transcribed myself, and others were done by a transcription company.

I’ve done minimal editing on these transcripts, although in a few cases I have added a few words where I felt they were needed, for clarification. But since these transcripts are being presented pretty much raw, the reader should perhaps expect a few spelling and grammatical errors. I also tend to ramble in these videos, and simply follow my thoughts wherever they go, so the reader also shouldn’t expect a clearly and carefully planned laying out of ideas. And there is a lot of repetition as I sort of spin my wheels as I collect my thoughts, or in an attempt to say the same thing in several different ways in order to make sure I’m getting my point across. I do these videos off the cuff, unrehearsed and without a great deal of forethought, and mostly for my own purposes, to get my thoughts down as quickly and as easily as possible. And the transcripts of the videos will reflect that.

The transcripts have not been edited to improve conciseness and readability. There are simply too many videos, presenting too huge a task for transcription, for me to waste time with a proper job of editing. Especially since I intend to give these transcriptions away for free in electronic form, and simply for the cost of book printing in the case of a hardcopy.

If something is unclear, perhaps due to an error in the transcription process, or I mention something that seems to have a visual component, the actual videos can be consulted on YouTube, Vimeo.com or Archive.org. In many of the videos, I’m gesturing with my hands, or showing diagrams, or doing other visual stuff that might not translate into words, and so it might be helpful to view the actual videos. In fact, some of what I consider to be my best videos are so inextricably tied to custom animations and illustrations that a transcript would be unintelligible and so won’t even be attempted (yes, I know, these current transcripts are unintelligible due to my idiocy, so you’d hate to see videos that I won’t even attempt to transcribe, right?). These videos should most definitely be watched, as they are of course so incredibly informative and damning to Relativity.

The videos transcribed in this volume can be found by searching the aforementioned sites using the title of the chapters herein, as the chapter titles are the names I used for the videos.

Also, the transcripts are presented in no particular order, so the reader may skip around in the book without worrying that something crucial was missed in an earlier section.

With the preceding in mind, here is the first volume of the transcripts. Now I’m off to continue working on the transcripts for the second volume. And the third. And the fourth...

January 2017

Transcripts in this volume:

Why Physics MUST Combine Special Relativity’s Two Main Thought Experiments

The Time Dilation Flaw

The Time Dilation Flaw II

The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw II

The Pseudoscience Flaw

More on relativitys Planck/Ant-Man Problem, steel balls, length contraction vs. object compression

Burden of Proof: Geocentrism or Relativity?

It’s Just Not True That Relativity Says Everything is Moving Relative to Everything Else

Also included are two non-video essays:

The Spherical Ship

Debunking Relativity: The Light Clock Problem

As well as a comic strip by Scott Reeves, Stephen Hawking Gets Taken to School

Why Physics MUST Combine Special Relativity’s Two Main Thought Experiments

OK, just when I thought I was done...

One other thing I did want to add to what I was just saying about how, if the light pulse is moving along with the light clock, it precludes the possibility of the relativity of simultaneity. Why would I be saying that? By saying that, I’m viewing the photon as a point on a wave, or a sphere. Like an outward expanding ripple, or a wave, or a sphere of light. I’m not considering it as a single photon. So when it goes up like this, and it’s moving along with the rocket, and it’s remaining centered here...If that photon is moving along like that, that would mean that the center of the sphere where it’s expanding from would have to be remaining at the center of the light clock too.

So the reason I say that it precludes the possibility of the relativity of simultaneity is because the photons are going to be traveling at the same speed going this direction as they are going that direction. So you’ve got a point (a photon) on the wave here, and you’ve got a point on the wave here, and you’ve got a point on the wave here, they’re all traveling outward at the same speed, in different directions. If the center (the point of emission) is remaining coincidental with the source of emission, and the photons are all traveling outward at the same speed, then the one traveling opposite the direction of motion is going to hit the rear wall at the same time as the forward traveling photon is going to hit the front wall from the viewpoint of both observers, the outside stationary observer and the observer in the rocket.

In the example I gave, in which we were trying to find a situation in which the sphere would remain stationary relative to the inside observer while maintaining the outside observer’s ability to derive time dilation, if the rocket is regarded as moving, and the photons are all expanding from a common point, or center of the sphere of expansion, and they’re all traveling at the same speed in all directions, so the center must then be moving along too. So they’re all keeping an equal distance from the center, and the center is moving on with the rocket so that the sphere remains stationary with respect to the inside observer, so there won’t be any relativity of simultaneity, which is why I kept saying that.

The reason I am bringing this up is because if you’re viewing it as a single photon, you might be tempted to say, Well, there is still the possibility of relativity of simultaneity, because if you’re examining each photon, if you’re not considering that it’s on a sphere, you are examining each one individually, separately, sort of just on its own merits, however you want to phrase that.

That’s why I think my combined version of these thought experiments is more correct, because the photons are not independent. Light from a naked bulb will expand in a sphere. You can view it that way, and it seems to me that’s the proper way to examine these thought experiments. Not with each individual photon treated separately from all the other photons on any particular wave, because that leads you to examine each individual photon without taking into consideration what the other photons that are equidistant from the point of emission, as measured by any particular observer, are doing. I’m just going to pick this photon and examine what that one’s doing, without considering that how I treat this photon affects how I treat this other photon, because I’m considering it individually, when in actuality all the photons need to be considered together, because those photons are all part of an expanding wave. Those photons are not individual photons. They are points on a wave, a sphere of photons. They’re not individual photons. I don’t believe you can consider them individually.

I mean, you CAN consider them individually, but this photon here is going to behave exactly like this photon up here, because they’re individual, but yet they were all emitted at the same time. They were all emitted from a single point at the exact same time. If you’re going to say, Well, you can’t say they were emitted at the exact same time from every observer’s viewpoint — yes, you can. Are you going to tell me that if I’m looking at a light bulb, no single photon was emitted at the same time as another?

Hopefully you can grasp the meaning of what I’m trying to say. I’m not sure how to put it into words. It’s an emission event. It’s a single event at single place. It’s not like the emission of the photons is separate events separated widely in space. Like, you’ve got an event here where there’s an emission of photons, and you’ve got one over there, i.e. two emission events separated in space, where you can kind of argue like relativity does, that events separated in space that are simultaneous in one frame might not be simultaneous in another.

This could even be the relativity of simultaneity example where the lightning bolt strikes either end of the train, and one observer is rushing toward one of the strikes...The emission of photons I’m talking about are not like that. They’re not separate events in separate locations. The emission is a single event at one location. It’s an emission like the one that occurs when you flip on a light bulb. There’s no possibility that the photons on each wavefront, as it were, from such a singular emission event, are somehow not occurring simultaneously with the other photons on each particular wavefront, as seen by any possible observer.

This light bulb has its own timeline, obviously. its own sort of intrinsic timeline. If you’ve got two photons, they’re emitted at the same point on that timeline. It’s not like, this is an emission, and on down the timeline, this is another emission. It’s not like you can say, Well, this photon was emitted at an earlier time than this one on this light bulb’s timeline, yet both photons are on the same wavefront, equidistant from the point of emission, because that’s impossible. I don’t think I’m explaining that very well, but it’s impossible. There is no relativity of simultaneity thing to consider here in regards to the emission of the photons that comprise the same particular wavefront.

Any observer, regardless of reference frame, can choose two photons that were emitted at the same time, because the emission of both photons is a single event, not separated by space. The event is in the same place. It’s not like you can’t choose two photons that were emitted at the same place at the same time. That’s why I’m saying that if you’re considering a photon here, striking this wall, there’s an corresponding photon, assuming you’ve got a naked like bulb or something and not a directed laser pulse — if you take a photon here at position A, there is going to be a photon up here at position M that has to be treated exactly identically to the one at A, and they’re like points on a wave.

I think that’s the way you have to examine those two classic thought experiments. Not as two individual photons, one of which you use to demonstrate time dilation, and the other to demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity. You have to consider them as points on a wave rather than single individual photons. You can’t treat them as separate photons. You can’t examine this photon, and then examine this one, because even as you’re examining this one, you have to keep in mind that there is an corresponding photon up here that has to be treated identically, by which I mean realizing that it is the same distance as the other from the point of emission, from which point both photons were emitted absolutely simultaneously.

My whole point is that I started this saying that you might be tempted to take this photon individually and saying, Well, why is Scott saying that if you have the time dilation, you can’t have relativity of simultaneity? The point was, you can’t examine those photons individually. You have to take them all into consideration as part of a collection of photons that are all centered on a common point of emission. If one moves in this direction, there’s another that is moving identically in the opposite direction, or the perpendicular direction and so on, at the same speed.

You can rotate the photon sphere. There is no This one’s going forward and this one is going backward. You can say, This one is traveling along the direction of some other object’s motion, but taken on it’s own... You know, you can rotate this sphere, so there’s really no difference between this photon going this way or going this other way. It’s only going up this way in relation to the rocket. You can only say a photon is going perpendicular to the direction of motion or in the direction of motion of the rocket. Considering the photon shell or wavefront in isolation, solely considering the sphere and its constituents amongst themselves, any one photon is traveling at the same speed from the center of the shell or sphere as all the other photons that were emitted at the same time. It’s a common center. They’re all traveling away from that common point of emission at the same speed. And if they’re emitted at the same time, like it’s a light wave, they’re emitted at the same time, then at any particular time subsequent to the emission event, they’re all equidistant from that common point.

So if you’re examining this photon, there is another photon up here and back here that you have to... How you consider this photon affects how you’re considering the other ones. When examining this photon, if you’re going to examine it individually, you have to take into account how this examination affects these other photons. If you’re going to say that one photon has struck a wall or bulkhead that is the same distance from the common point of emission as another wall in the opposite direction, then you can’t say, Hey, the photon that has struck the wall has a companion photon that was emitted at the same time but has not yet struck the wall in the opposite direction. To say that is to claim that a physically impossible situation is occurring. But yet that is exactly what special relativity is saying with its two main thought experiments.

And it doesn’t work to say that the space through which some of the photons are moving has undergone length contraction, since if one observer is measuring length contraction, he is going to be hard pressed to explain how certain photons emitted from a common point at the same time have traveled different distances in the same amount of as other companion photons. The distance value derived from ct cannot vary depending upon which photon on the sphere our observer is considering. This would mean that one of the most basic laws of physics is not the same within the same reference frame, let alone being the same in differing reference frames. So you can’t examine the