ResistETIntervention

If gravity affected the frequency of light, but not its speed, you might want to ask yourself whether the light beam would still travel the same amount of distance in a given amount of time in vacuum in the presence of gravity, and whether you are personally able to provide accurate data based on repeatable experiments on your claim, or whether you are merely relying on other people's claims, data obtained from experiments that you yourself cannot perform, or thought experiments? If I were lying about my sighting, I must be in some sort of conspiracy with millions of other people in the world. I actually did not know there were other people who had such sightings until after I sighted such and then searched online for an explanation. If I think I saw an object that achieved a superluminal speed but am mistaken, why are you unable to provide a concrete explanation for what I sighted - because you know that is precisely what you yourself would observe, if you had sighted a brilliant object achieving a superluminal speed from a stationary position? When you study a theory for which you find no algebraic or logical flaw, you start by investigating the statement of the theory. The problem with Einstein's theory is in the statement - in the assumptions that are labeled as postulates which people erroneously presumed as an irrefutable, absolute, universal fact. The definition of the word "postulate" is a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief an assumption used as a basis for mathematical reasoning In mathematical theorems which are generally stated as "If ----, then ----," the "if" statement is not considered an absolute, universal truth, but the postulate in the statement of a theorem that is used in reasoning to derive the "then" statement. For example, if a statement of a theorem begins with "If a function f is continuous," you do not presume that a function is always continuous. The time dilation theory begins with a statement such as following: This would be the "if" statement that you presume in order to derive the "then" statement in the theory. What has been misconstrued is that those postulates are absolute, universal truth that no one should question. Unlike mathematical theorems in which certain results are derived under certain assumptions without violating any physical phenomena or raising questions about them, however, due to the nature of the statement regarding the physical universe, the postulates of Einstein's theory forces us to either accept the "if" statement along with the "then" statement of the theory as absolute truth or dispose the postulates along with the conclusion and corollaries of the theory as false - the results, and thus, the postulates, which the human technology at the time (and perhaps even now...at least, to the extent that the general public is led to believe) did not evolve enough to dispute its veracity by achieving the luminal or a superluminal speed. In case you are one of the people who assert that the veracity of the postulates has been verified, I'd ask whether you validated its accuracy yourself, or you're accepting someone else's word as absolute truth without verifying it yourself through repeated experiments. Are such scientists the only ones who are privy to such data obtained from experiments that none of you can personally perform repeatedly? You have two choices here: you can either remain passive and defend a theory that has apparently been disproved by the counterexamples from many people's observations in the world; or you can become more open-minded and proactive, and explore the new technology and the science behind it that have been presented to us by their experiences and contribute to advancing science and technology for future generations. What is necessary in considering the theory isour humility in recognizing that we do not know everything there is to know and the human race has not attained the pinnacle of scientific and technological evolution in the universe, and indeed, we are very far from attaining it; our compassion in considering the experiences of many people in the world, rather than utterly and disrespectfully disregard them for the sake of upholding a theory, or we end up undermining what the world is trying to tell us through them; our objectivity in reconsidering the theory that apparently has been disproved by such experiences; our open-mindedness If we all practiced the above (humility, compassion, objectivity, and open-mindedness) in all situations in life, the human race would be that much closer in recognizing all global issues and uniting to resolve them collectively in facing the greatest challenge of human history.

In case, you want to claim that light is not subject to gravity, consider the reason that even light cannot escape black holes - due to their gravities.

If I sighted an object (not mechanisms that can be controlled remotely or otherwise) that fell from a height took a vertically upward path, rather than a vertically downward path, I would say I had a counterexample to F = mg and s(t) = -0.5gt2 + s0. If millions of others had also sighted such objects, the disproof of F = mg and s(t) = -0.5gt2 + s0 would have been verified multiple times. Your dismissing my claim does not make the theory any less false. No, y = ct is not a formal assumption in the statement of the theory, but it is, nevertheless, a critical assumption that was used in proving the theory. The reason that the height of the right triangle used in proving the theory should be ct - 0.5gt2 (rather than y = ct) is the same as that for anything else that is subject to gravity, isn't it? In case, you want to claim that light is not subject to gravity, consider the reason that even light cannot escape black holes.

Fellows, don't get excited. I'm just saying Robittybob1 would be able to catch a ball thrown vertically upward in a moving vehicle. Robbitybob1, in order to disprove Einstein's theory, all I need to do is to provide one counterexample and I already gave one. In case, any of you decides to retaliate on my sighting, consider what you'd observe if you had sighted a brilliant object achieving a superluminal speed from a stationary position. There are many people in the world who have had such sightings, so there are many counterexamples to the theory. The astronaut Edgar Mitchell also gave his testimony on his sightings and stated that Einstein's theory is already known to be false. Given these facts, what we need to do collaboratively is to reconsider the theory and see what went wrong with the proof the theory, rather than upholding it for the sake of preserving it stubbornly. That would be the correct attitude of true scientists. Here is another faulty assumption made in the theory: that the height of the right triangle used in the proof of the theory is y = ct. In reality, it should be ct - 0.5gt2. Though in most practical situations with small velocities (in comparison to that of light) of any manmade vehicles, we may be able to approximate it as y=ct , any infinitesimal difference here could make all the difference in what is considered here and cannot be ignored. Then accordingly, the hypotenuse of the right triangle would also need to be corrected.

By your logic, you would be able to throw a ball vertically upward and catch it while on a skateboard, say. I already gave an explanation as to what went wrong in the theory.

A light beam emitted vertically upward isn't seeking to hit the point B directly above its source at the point A. It would simply travel vertically upward and end up hitting the point C.

The vehicle has a velocity. It is moving. It does not need to accelerate. If it did accelerate, the scenario certainly could not be explained in a triangle, for the path of the ball, as observed by the passenger, would not even be a straight line. The ball shot from a mechanism does not "know" that it is in a moving vehicle, once it is "airborne." While it is in midair, the vehicle would have moved a certain distance x meters, say. Thus, the ball will hit the point C on the ceiling that is x meters away from the point B on the ceiling that is directly above the mechanism at the point A on the floor.

Einstein's conclusion is based on his thought experiment and the computations made by assuming certain suppositions; some of which are outlined in the initial post. The theory was not obtained from the traditional scientific method as no data can be produced to prove that the luminal speed cannot be attained - at the time. The ball could be shot from a mechanism vertically upwards right in front of the passenger who will not observe the ball hitting at the point on the ceiling directly above the mechanism but a spot slightly next to that point in the opposite direction from that of the vehicle.

Adjustment isn't necessary. You get a right triangle from Einstein's thought experiment with its hypotenuse as the distance that light travels from the floor to the ceiling as observed by the external observer, its height as the distance the light beam travels from the floor to the ceiling as observed by the passenger, and the base as the distance the vehicle travels as observed by the external observer. This right triangle is attained by assuming at least three items which should not be presumed. The other thought experiment is just to visualize it better.

The idea of the thought experiment is to get a better visualization of Einstein's thought experiment. The ball is sent off vertically from its source on the floor - the same way a light beam was emitted from its source on the floor of the vehicle in proving that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

What went wrong in the proof of the theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? In a “normal” size vehicle, let say with the height of the interior of the vehicle (the distance from the floor to the ceiling) is about 3 m (≈3.28 yards), the time it takes the light beam emitted from its source on the floor to hit the ceiling is 10-8 of a second – literally a split bit of a second. The right triangle used to prove in the theory above is obtained under the assumptions that: Light would travel at the constant speed c=3×108 m/s regardless of the frame of reference. From the external observer’s perspective, light would hit the ceiling of the vehicle at the point B on the ceiling directly above the point A where the source of light is on the floor. Two different frames of reference (the passenger’s perspective and the external observer’s perspective) could be related in one single diagram. The first assumption would seem to hold in the case the velocity of the vehicle is insignificant compared to the speed of light: v≪c which is the underlying assumption which leads to the same conclusion. But what if v≈c? From the perspective of the passenger, would the light beam still seem to travel at the constant speed c=3×108 m/s? The second assumption is made under the presumption that the light beam emitted from its source at the point A on the floor will hit the point B directly above it on the ceiling. Once “airborne,” the light beam does not “know” that it is in a moving vehicle. Thus, it will travel in a straight, vertical path. Again, if v≪c, then it would seem that the light beam would hit the point B on the ceiling directly above the source on the floor, as it would if the vehicle were stationary. Indeed, it would seem insignificant where on the ceiling the light beam hits because it would require nanotechnology to measure the infinitesimal distance between the point C on the ceiling where the light beam actually hits and the point B which is directly above the light source at the point A on the floor. However, this insignificant distance is actually the length of the base of the right triangle used in describing Einstein’s thought experiment. So, as insignificant as it may seem, it must be noted that the light beam will not hit the point directly above its source, but towards west (if the vehicle is traveling in the east direction) and distance x away, where x=vt0 is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0 it takes the light beam to hit the ceiling, about 10-8 second, as observed by the external observer. Assume, for the moment, the third supposition above – that the scenario can be described in a triangle by combining the two different frames of reference – is justifiable. Then the right triangle used in proving the theory above is as follows, where z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling, as observed by the external observer, x is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0, again, as observed by the external observer, y is the distance the light beam traveled in time t1, as observed by the passenger traveling in the vehicle Note that x≪z is in any realistic situation, since in the best of scenarios, even if manmade, supersonic vehicles attain ten times the speed of sound (Mach 10), this right triangle would be so skinny (y≈z) that it would be almost a vertical line segment, rather than a triangle. However, there is no reason to presume that v≪c before anything is proven yet. In that case, there is no reason to make the first two assumptions. For the sake of observing accurately, suppose both the passenger and the external observer can observe the scenario in an extremely slow motion, slow enough that the scenario which occurs within 10-8 second can be viewed over, say, 10 seconds. Then, what would be true is that From the perspective of the passenger, the light beam would not travel directly from the point A to the point B directly above it, but to the point C which is x meters to the west away from the point B on the ceiling, where x=vt0 is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0 it takes the light beam to hit the ceiling, about 10-8 second, as observed by the external observer. That is, the passenger (traveling in east direction in the vehicle) would see the light beam as traveling northwesterly direction to the point C. On the other hand, from the external observer’s perspective, the light beam which does not “know” that it is in a moving vehicle, would travel in a straight path vertically and hit the ceiling at the point C, rather than at the point B directly above the point A, since the vehicle would have moved x meters. Then, again, assuming that the scenario can be described by combining two different frames of reference, the right right-triangle (or the correct right triangle) would be then one with y as the hypotenuse, and x the base and z the height. Here, this new right triangle (again, very skinny in any practical scenario, almost like a vertical line segment) can be used in two different cases: one in which the distance traveled by the vehicle is from the external observer’s and another in which the distance traveled by the “ground” is from the perspective of the passenger’s (if the vehicle is transparent, say). This is by retaining the third assumption made in proving the theory above. In the first case, then z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 , as observed by the external observer, x is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0, again, as observed by the external observer, y is the distance the light beam traveled in time t1, as observed by the passenger traveling in the vehicle In the second case, z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 , as observed by the external observer, x is the distance traveled by the “ground” in time t1 that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling, as observed by the passenger, y is the distance the light beam traveled in time t1, again, as observed by the passenger traveling in the vehicle Since we do not presume that the vehicle cannot travel at the luminal or a superluminal speed, we also do not presume that the passenger sees the light beam as traveling at the speed of c=3×108 m/s. We will label it as s for speed. Then, by applying the Pythagorean Theorem on the right triangle in two different cases above yields the following. In the first case, (vt0)2+(ct0)2=(st1)2, and in the second case, (vt1)2+(ct0)2=(st1)2. Setting the two left-hand-sides equal to each other, we see that t0=t1. That is, there is no time dilation. The time that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling is the same as observed by the external observer, as well as by the passenger. And the speed at which the light beam would seem to be moving away from the perspective of the passenger is s is the value that satisfies s2=v2+c2. This is not the actual speed of the light beam, but only the perceived speed of the light beam, as observed by the passenger who thinks the light beam is traveling in a diagonal fashion, rather than in a vertical fashion. This perceived, non-actual speed of the light beam computed is a result of combining two different perspectives in one equation, which is an assumption made in “proving” Einstein’s theory: that the two different frames of reference can be combined to describe the scenario in a single diagram. If we do not retain that assumption, then there is no triangle to describe the scenario, let alone a right triangle. Whether we retain that assumption or not, we do not arrive at a result that precludes any object from traveling at superluminal speeds. In the correct right triangle, what does the distance y actually mean then, if it is to have any meaning in the diagram above without producing a non-actual, perceived quantity due to combining two difference references of frame? z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 , as observed by the external observer, x is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0, as observed by the external observer, y is the distance between the source of the light beam on the floor and the head-end of the light beam at time t0, as observed by the external observer With this diagram which includes only one perspective, that of the external observer in a non-moving frame of reference, there is no non-actual, perceived quantity produced in computations. This scenario may be more easily visualized if we change it by exchanging a small ball with a light beam. Here is a thought experiment. A thought experiment: Consider a vehicle with a ceiling of 100 m, traveling at a speed of v=100 m/s. Assume that in the vehicle is vacuum and with no gravity. A ball is emitted vertically upward at a speed of c=1000 m/s (v<c), 100 m/s (v=c), or 10 m/s (v>c). What path of the ball does a passenger in the vehicle observe and an observer outside the vehicle observe? Once “airborne,” the ball does not “know” that it is in a moving vehicle, and it will travel in a vertical fashion as observed by an external observer, though it will seem to the passenger that it is traveling diagonally to where it hits on the ceiling.

Have certain scientists in the past and present been artificially and unduly elevated to a celebrity position where they were/are revered by their peers, followers, and thus, laymen with no expertise in their fields, so that the statements of such people (no matter what they claim) could not be disputed? People must learn to question what they are told: - “Do I really know what I’m being told is true, or am I just assuming that it is true?” - “Have I looked into the subject matter deeply enough or am I mindlessly accepting it?” - “Who or what are the authority figures in my life that are influencing my thoughts and behaviors – governments, parents, friends, experts, religious beliefs, advertisements, scientific beliefs, trending topics on the internet,…?” - “Is there an ulterior motive behind the propaganda that is being cast upon me and the human race, and if so, what is that motive?” Instead of being satisfied with the immediate answers that come to their minds, they must try to be with the questions and see what experiences or insights they gain from them. Have you ever pondered upon the Special Relativity Theory? It is the theory that "precludes" any objects from travelling at superluminal speeds. Often the opponents of the ET Intervention claim that no such visitation by extraterrestrial races is possible because of the theory. I invite you to consider the theory from a new perspective. ---------------------------------------------- A vehicle traveling at a speed of v m/s for t seconds traveled a distance of x=vt . Suppose this vehicle had a mirror in the ceiling and floor. The passenger in the vehicle sees the light traveling from the floor to the ceiling at the luminal speed of c=3×10^8 m/s in T seconds for a distance of y=cT meters. An observer outside the vehicle sees the light traveling at the luminal speed for t seconds for a distance of z=ct meters when the light beam hits the ceiling. The assumption made here is that the situation can be described by a right triangle above and thus, the two (different) times, t and T, can be related by the Pythagorean Theorem as below: t=T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where "sqrt" is a symbol we use here to indicate the square root. As v→c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2→0, making the left-hand-side of the equation approach infinity. If v>c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2<0, and thus an imaginary number in the denominator of the quantity. Hence, the assertion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is “proved.” The equation in Special Relativity “precludes” any object from traveling at any speed close to the luminal speed, and thus, v≪c. Then, in the time t that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling as observed by an outside observer, the distance traveled by the vehicle and the distance traveled by the light to the ceiling as observed by an outside observer are significantly different, and the situation cannot be described by a right triangle because the distance x is significantly less than the distance z. The Pythagorean Theorem used to “prove” the theory does not apply in the situation where the distance from the floor to the ceiling is insignificant compared to the distance z as well. On the other hand, for the Pythagorean Theorem to be applied in the situation, the speed of the vehicle v must be quite close to the luminal speed c in order to form a right triangle as above. But then the theory indicates that the value v cannot be anywhere near c. It is a contradiction either way. Regardless of the faulty assumption made in “proving” the theory, the fact that I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position within a second or two is already a counterexample to this theory, which disproves it. The fact that many other people in the world have sighted such phenomenon verifies the disproof of the theory multiple times.

You guys are still loved.

A free pdf file can be downloaded from here: http://www.alliesofhumanity.org/allies-of-humanity-book1.pdf The book is also translated and available to download for free in these languages: French, Portuguese, German, Spanish, Korean, Swedish, and Italian so far. You can find the translations here: http://alliesofhumanity.org/allies1/