“Gravitational Waves”: Great Discovery or Blunder?
Criticism of Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity has been taboo among serious scientists for almost a century. But in recent years, mainly due to the rise of the internet, serious researchers have been tackling some of the apparent flaws in Einstein’s physics. 
For some time the main critics of Einstein were from Eastern countries, in scientific communities of China and Russia, whereas in Europe and USA Einstein’s legacy has been too powerful to question.
Nonetheless, Italian researcher, Alberto Miatello has published a paper which is a radical attack on Einstein’s relativism. Miatello expounds a new theory of unification based on the Principle of universal inertia by Ernst Mach in ‘Gravitational Waves: Great Discovery or Blunder?’ [1]
The Italian researcher advises, “For readers seeking a ready insight of the content of my paper which is quite long (76 pages), I suggest they first read the final “summary” (published below).
Summary:
The present model can coherently answer 8 fundamental questions of modern physics:
1) Is it really possible to find a TOE (theory of everything) unifying all the fundamental forces with gravity?
A.: Yes. It is the ISS (Inertial Simultaneous Synchronization), i.e. the force/mechanism based on Mach’s Principle, explaining why gravity, electromagnetic fields and quantum entangled particles do propagate instantaneously, without any need of physical mediators such as “waves” or “particles”, as simple “synchronization of information”, and explaining why inertia was the first force giving mass and energy to the original singularity/point mass at the moment of Big Bang, and it is still the only “action-at-a-distance” force keeping instantaneously linked all the matter of universe, and regardless of its distance, according to Mach’s principle.
2) Is the speed of light (c) really an absolute constant and insurmountable limit of the universe, as in Einstein’s SR (Special relativity)?
A.: No. c is simply a physical parameter, (as G, h), whose variation is strictly linked to the size and radius of the universe: c was very much larger when the universe was “smaller” and “denser”, as in Guth and other models. Mass of the universe is the only fundamental constant never changing (unless you admit a continuous creation, as in Hoyle/Bondi model). Keeping c as an “absolute constant” was for sure the greatest mistake in Einstein’s life, due to his rigid and stubborn dogmatism, refusing to comply with experimental facts (Einstein disliked “laboratory scientists”), and accepting only his “thought experiments”. If you accept c as an “absolute constant” you cannot explain instantaneous quantum entanglement, as confirmed by dozens of experiments, and at the end you have to refuse QM. If you take c as an “absolute constant” you cannot explain why our solar system is stable after billions of years, since gravity propagates instantaneously as in Newton mechanics, and as electromagnetic fields instantaneously synchronize. You cannot explain neither Higgs mechanism (based on “tachyon condensation” of superluminal/faster than light particles) nor Guth’s inflationary universe (where light speed was 10^23 times faster than today!). You cannot explain Sagnac effect and GPS mechanism, etc., etc. I definitely 1,000 times prefer to get rid of Einstein’s relativism rather than of Galileo, Newton, Planck, Mach, Heisenberg, Tesla, Bohr, etc., etc.
3) Is time really “relative” as in SR? Is it really “reversible” from future to past and from past to future, and is really time “an illusion” as Einstein was believing?
A.: No. Time is so little “an illusion” that Einstein himself was still alive 62 years ago, whereas today no “relativist” would dare to say this anymore. Time of the universe is just one and – sadly for Einstein, Minkowski, etc. – it is neither reversible, nor “dilatable”. It depends on the “arrow of time” and the fundamental 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy which is dominating. If you admit – as in Mach’s principle – that inertia propagates instantaneously, throughout the universe, then you are bound to admit that there is just 1 time in the universe. Again, the greatest mistake of Einstein, i.e. constancy of speed of light, was “dragging” with it other fundamental mistakes, such as the refusal of time as universal entity, as in Newton and Quantum mechanics. Of course, you can have – theoretically – infinite Hilbert spaces, and a theoretical “symmetry” of time, as in Schrödinger’s wave function, however, for macroscopic and turbulent states (Prigogine), as in the actual physical universe, at the end all those states do collapse in just one physical time. It is quite telling – in this respect – that even the most stubborn and radical defenders of the “multi-worlds” interpretation of QM, as Hugh Everett III, when asked why we do not experience infinite universes and times in our physical universe – as they maintain – reluctantly had to mention entropy, Big Bang, etc. implicitly admitting that “boundary conditions” are constraining time, and the time arrow within precise limits. And finally, time cannot be “dilated” – as Einstein and Lorentz believed – and linear accelerators of particles are not “slowing down” time, they simply slow down devices of atomic clocks, by releasing a lot of kinetic energy, which increases the mass of particles, making also electrons of atomic clocks rotate more slowly, giving thereby the illusion that time is “slowing down”. But – contrary to Einstein’s belief – time is just one in the whole universe, and – sadly for Feynman – nobody has ever detected neither energies nor particles “coming from future”.
4) Can we explain “dark energy”?
A.: Yes. My model can coherently explain dark energy by simply giving up the “dogma” of constancy of speed of light c, and keeping c as a variable parameter. If you keep c as a variable, and keep only Mu (mass of universe) as a stable constant, then you are bound to admit that Mu = Mu’ (mass of any previous universes), and therefore ( according to energy-mass equation) E/c² = E’/c’². But this easy equation can mathematically be solved – as c² < c’² – only if E > E’, only if today’s universe energy is larger than that of previous universes.
This explains why there is always a “positive gap” (= Δ E > 0) in the expanding vacuum of the universe, whereas we have at the same time a negative pressure Δ P < 0, as the universe expands and becomes less dense. Thus the “dark energy” is just this “positive gap” of energies of the expanding universe in respect of the previous universe(s).
Otherwise, if you wrongly keep c as a constant – as Dirac, Feynman were taking for granted in their equations – then Δ E = 0, i.e. vacuum energy of the expanding universe would not variate, and consequently you have to resort to fancy “explanations” such “–E” , namely a supposed “negative energy” coming from future. In my model you do not have to resort to similar unphysical explanations.
5) Is there a cosmic “ether” ?
A.: Yes, but not as in the obsolete models by Maxwell, Michelson-Morley, Newton, etc., as a sort of “invisible substance” uniformly encompassing in the same way the whole universe, and supposedly necessary for propagation of light, sounds, etc.
The most correct version of ether seems so far the one proposed by Petr Beckmann, where “ether” is simply the gravitational and variable field of planets, stars, etc. This can explain why particles meet less resistance while crossing less dense gravitational fields (as in GPS mechanism), whereas they quickly increase their masses, whenever they are being accelerated in linear accelerators on Earth, as a form of resistance of their inertial masses to acceleration and kinetic energy.
6) Why matter is so much “prevailing” over anti-matter?
A.: My model – based on a variable c, and a positive ΔE > 0 vacuum energy of the expanding universe – can easily account for the prevalence of matter over anti-matter, simply because both vacuum and stable matter are showing positive energies. Thus anti-matter can be “confined” , as a recessive and “random” phenomenon , just in very short quantum fluctuations of vacuum space – as routinely foreseen by the Uncertainty Principle – or as a consequence of cosmic huge phenomena such as explosions of supernovae/hypernovae releasing γ rays which – as in laboratory experiments – can split into couples of particles/anti-particles quickly annihilating, under strong electric fields.
7) Is the concept of “gravitational singularity” as in Einstein’s GR still valid ?
A.: No. My model is simply explaining the original universe before the Big Bang, but also the collapse of masses in black holes, etc., through standard QM, as a Dirac δ function/distribution, namely as the quantum limit of density up to a point mass, as described by Dirac in his original 1930 book [127], and then improved by Schwarz, Sobolev, etc., without any need to resort to the bogus “curvature of space-time” as in Einstein’s GR. Moreover, the quantum concept of Dirac δ can much better describe the instantaneous propagations and synchronization of inertia, entangled particles, gravity, electromagnetic fields as impulsive signals, carrying no energy but just information.
8) Is to possible to “reconcile” QM and GR ?
A.: No. Simply because QM is totally correct (as classical physics), whereas GR is the most wrong and overrated physical theory ever, a monument to the physical incoherence, based on a wrong “strong equivalence principle”, where gravity is not a force but an alleged “geometrical warping of space-time”, and where gravitational fields are not matter, whereas electromagnetic fields are matter in Einstein’s view, without any understandable reason for this difference. And at the same time gravity should – according to GR’s upholders – propagate through waves (detectable by interferometers), which are moving molecules and atoms and are acting as forces, while being “non-forces” at the same time. And finally, even calculations of GR were totally wrong, the famous 43” of Mercury’s perihelion advance were actually 100” per century due to Einstein’s miscalculation and wrong integration, as proved by Prof. Hua Di, thereby making GR a totally useless old tool.
What it seems important to say clearly, is that it is time scientific community gets a bolder attitude, by abandoning once forever this conformist and almost worshipping embarrassing attitude toward Einstein and his relativism, that reminds Middle Age more than 3rd Millennium.
Einstein himself – who surely was a pleasant and witty person – was well aware of limits of his theories, and had no problem in expressing his doubts about the “solidity” of his concepts.
What seems important to say, at the end, is that science progresses just whenever someone has no fear to challenge a scientific opinion that seems questionable to her/him, no matter how “authoritative” is the person who released it.
In 1895, Sir William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, probably the most famous and authoritative scientist the world over, and President of the Royal Society, released this forceful declaration: “Heavier than air flight machines are impossible!”
Only eight years later, in 1903, two modest and unknown (although brilliant and self-confident!) engineers and inventors, from US Midwest, Orville and Wilbur Wright, maybe did not hear about Kelvin’s words, or maybe they laughed at them.
All we know for sure is that they successfully produced the first heavier-than-air- flight-machines, proving that in science – as in everyday life – it is always better to use your own brain, rather than passively “taking for granted” what other people – no matter how famous and “authoritative” they could be – are saying.
*********
[1] Miatello, A., “Gravitational Waves”: Great Discovery or Blunder? The I.S.S. (Inertial Simultaneous Synchronization) as Mach’s Unification of Gravity, Electromagnetism and Quantum Mechanics. The “Mathematical Universe” as an Impulsive Dirac Delta Function/Distribution. Located at www.academia.edu (accessed online: August 29, 2016)
Trackback from your site.