RelativityChallenge.Com Podcast Steven Bryant

Modern Classical Mechanics is a new, intuitive, model that yields better than 100 times the accuracy of the Einstein-Lorentz equations in several experiments including Michelson-Morley and Ives-Stillwell!  Because it distinguishes between Length and Wavelength, its theoretical explanations avoid non-intuitive concepts like time dilation, length contraction, and the twin paradox; each of which are required by Relativity theory.

This is a video of a presentation delivered at the 18th annual NPA conference which was held in July, 2011, at the University of Maryland.  It is presented in four sections.

Part 1 – Recap of the Spherical Wave Proof analysis and introduction to the Hypercone failure
Part 2 – Introduction to Modern Classical Mechanics
Part 3 – Experimental Analysis to show the improved accuracy of Modern Classical Mechanics over Relativity theory.
Part 4 – Explanation behind why Relativity requires time dilation, length contraction and the twin paradox; and why these concepts are not required by a model that recognizes the importance of Wavelength.

Modern Classical Mechanics is a comprehensive model that supersedes the model of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems.
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/media/RelativityChallenge.com-Episode23_iPod.m4vDownload Podcast | Open Player in New Window
Download in Windows Media Format
Download in PDF Format

Episode 22 is the Failure of Einstein’s Spherical Wave Proof presentation that I delivered at the 17th Annual NPA Conference held at California State University, Long Beach on 23, June 2010.  It is essentially the “Director’s Cut” of Episode 21, and expands on that material.  It shows that Einstein’s Relativity Theory derivation fails because of the failure in the Spherical Wave Proof.  Specifically, this episode covers the following:

Explains why the Spherical Wave Proof is The Essential Proof that established Relativity Theory
Shows the failure of Einstein’s Spherical Wave Proof as a failure to develop a second sphere
Identifies the belief that the proof passes as the result of a “False Positive”, or “Type I Error”
Discusses implications of the failure on terms like Length Contraction, Space-Time Curvature, and Time Dilation

Viewers who have watched Episode 21 will find much of the material familiar.
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/media/RelativityChallenge.com-Episode22.m4vDownload Podcast | Open Player in New Window
Download in Windows Media Format

We have offered many mathematical and conceptual challenges to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. In Episode 21, we offer compelling evidence that Einstein’s Spherical Wave Proof fails. Without this proof, Einstein cannot establish a relationship between Relativity and the constancy of the speed of light; a cornerstone characteristic of the theory.
This Episode reexamines the key characteristics of a Sphere, and uses those characteristics to show why Einstein’s proof actually fails. The following specific points are covered in this video:

A look at Einstein’s Spherical Wave Proof
A look at the textual and mathematical requirements of a Sphere
Review of Einstein’s work to show that his equations do not satisfy the requirements

In addition to the video, a PDF version of the presentation is available for download.

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/media/RelativityChallenge.com-Episode21_iPod.m4vDownload Podcast | Open Player in New Window
Download in Windows Media Format
Download in PDF Format

“I live 20 miles per hour from the University.” Is that statement confusing?  It should be.  In Episode 20, we take a look at Rates and Functions, and discuss how they have been mistreated for the past century.  More importantly, we’ll take a look at how key concepts and mathematics can get confused if we don’t say the right thing.  For example, would you feel confused if I had began with “I live 20 miles from the University.”?  This Episode is a replay of a presentation that I delivered the Pacific Region AAAS conference at San Francisco State University in August 2009.
This Episode summarizes and synthesizes a lot of the material we’ve looked at over the past 9 videos.  New visitors will find that it serves as a good introduction to the material on the site.
The following specific points are covered in this video:

A brief history of moving systems equations and SRT
A look at the mathematical and conceptual mistakes we’re still making today
Revisiting the improved results to the Michelson-Morley and Ives-Stillwell equations
Implications on position-based navigation systems

In addition to the video, a PDF version of the presentation is available for download.
Corrections:

At 15:10 – the arguments to the Tau function invocation in the Key Findings callout should be  (x’,0,0,x’/(c-v)).  This is corrected in the PDF.
At 16:20 – the callout should say “…Average of the Approaching and Receding Doppler shifts”
At 16:55 – I should have said “revising Michelson-Morley” instead of saying “revising Ives-Stillwell”

Update: I’ve added the following two links from the NPA Video Conference I delivered in October 2009. One link is for the video and the other is for the slides. I think this video is essentially the “Director’s cut” of the presentation.
Bonus: Download NPA Conference Video in Windows Media Format
Bonus: Download NPA Conference Video in PDF Format
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/media/RelativityChallenge.com-Episode20_iPod.m4vDownload Podcast | Open Player in New Window
Download in Windows Media Format
Download in PDF Format

Do you want to know what Time Dilation is and why Einstein needed it to make Relativity work? In Episode 19, we explain what things mean.   We’ll talk about the main concepts that are important for each moving system model – Newton, Lorentz, Einstein, and the CICS Model. After watching this episode, you should be able to explain the key concepts of Relativity such as Time Dilation and Length Contraction.  This knowledge is beneficial to both supporters of, and challengers to, Special Relativity.  We will explain why Einstein needed these terms for this theory to make sense and how they are based on an incomplete understanding of Transformations and Wavelength. And we’ll address why our modern understanding of Transformations and Wavelength, as incorporated into the CICS Model, results in a model that is free of Time Dilation and Length Contraction. This video ends with a comparison of the moving system models and where they differ conceptually from one another.
The following specific points are covered in this video


Explanation of Transformations:  Why you need to consider 3 Transformation types, not just 1 as is currently done by the existing models
Explanation of Wavelength and Frequency and why they are different than counting cycles or measuring length
Explanation of “what” Newton’s Equations do and where they apply and “what” Lorentz’s Equations do and where they apply
Explain how the CICS Model differs from Lorentz and Einstein and why it produces quantitatively better mathematical results

In addition to the video, the accompanying PowerPoint presentation is provided in PDF format.
Corrections:

At 11:03, I say “six hundred thousand” when I should have said “six hundred million”
At 11:23, I say “300,000,000 meters per second” when I should have said “300,000,000 meters per cycle”
At 21:47, I say “… they believe they observed something different” when I should have said “… they believe they observed the same thing”

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/media/RelativityChallenge.com-Episode19_iPod.m4vDownload Podcast | Open Player in New Window
Download Presentation in PDF Format
Download Video in WMV Format

In Episode 18, I present Part 2 of a 2 part presentation delivered at the AAAS/NPA Conference held in April 2008 at the University of New Mexico.  This presentation compares and contrasts the models presented by Michelson-Morley, Lorentz, Einstein, and myself – clearly outlining the key assumptions behind each model.  In addition, I summarize the finding that in two experiments – Ives-Stillwell and Michelson-Morley – that the Model of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems yields greater accuracy than their Special Relativity-based equivalents. The following specific points are covered in this presentation. 

Identify the assumptions that make up each of the key Moving System Model
Explanation of why the original Michelson-Morley Experiment does not support Fresnel’s (Aether-based) or Einstein’s (non Aether-based) theory
Explanation of why the revised Michelson-Morley Analysis supports Fresnel and the Model of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems
Show that the equations associated with the Model of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems produces better predictions than the Special Relativity-based equations for the Ives-Stillwell Atomic Clock experiment

In addition to the video, a presentation and the accompanying Comparison Chart are included in PDF form.  Corrections have been made within the video as call-outs. 
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/media/RelativityChallenge.com-Episode18_iPod.m4vDownload Podcast | Open Player in New Window
Download in Windows Media Player Format
Download Presentation in PDF Format
Download Comparison Chart in PDF Format