# Review of “Disruptive”—The Demise of Relativity

Steve Bryant’s remarkable book puts the kibosh on relativity where it really matters: mathematics. My own objections to both Special and General Relativity (SRT and GRT) are well known, being centered on Einstein’s flagrant violations of “The Ten Assumptions of Science,” particularly his objectification of motion.[1]  As a superb mathematician, Steve adheres to the rules of mathematics and computer science to clearly demonstrate where Einstein made critical errors that invalidate relativity. Among the errors are the following:

1. Einstein’s failure to correctly derive the relativistic hypercone, which was a critical first step in his work.[2]
2. Einstein’s improper usage of types. In computer science, which is Steve’s specialty, a primary rule is that one cannot mix types. For instance, there are two main types: discrete and compound. Discrete types are formulas that do not have divisors, while compound types always do. Thus length and time are discrete and frequency (cycles/second) and wavelength (meters/cycle) are compound. That means, for instance, that length and wavelength cannot be used interchangeably as Einstein did.
3. Einstein used two-system mathematics for what actually calls for three-system mathematics. Here is where Steve introduces what he calls “Modern Mechanics Theory (MMT),” his replacement for relativity, classical mechanics, and quantum mechanics. This involves an outer reference system, which remains fixed, an inner system that moves in one direction, and an oscillatory system that moves back and forth.

The beauty of MMT is that it removes all the paradoxes and contradictions that afflict SRT and GRT. Thus, for example, there is no need for “time dilation,” “length contraction,” “4-dimensions,” “wave-particle duality,” “massless photons,” “perfectly empty space,” and a “universal speed limit.”  Nonetheless, Steve recognizes that SRT, despite all its subtle mathematical errors, still has produced some valuable first approximations in the description of electromagnetic motion.

### Michelson-Morley[3]

His analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 is superb. He points out that the results said to disprove the presence of aether actually did no such thing. First of all, their own calculations of the raw data show that there was a less than 0.1% chance that the experiment supported a null result. They were looking for an interference pattern that could have been used to calculate the velocity of Earth around the Sun (30 km/s). Instead, they got only 8 km/s, which Einstein and others mistakenly considered to be a null result. Second of all, the equations they developed to analyze the raw data were for discrete types (e.g., time and distance), when they only were capable of measuring compound types (e.g., frequency and wavelength).

After developing the proper equations for compound types, Steve used MMT and their raw data to calculate a velocity of 32 km/s. With a calculated error of about 3 km/s, this is very close to the expected result for Earth’s velocity within a partially dragged aether.

### Ives-Stilwell[4]

The Ives-Stillwell experiment of 1938 is among those generally considered as proof that SRT is correct and that time dilation is a fact. Despite the famous Sagnac experiment proving just the opposite,[5] regressive physicists continue to blame the results of similar experiments on time dilation.[6] Of course, readers of this Blog know that “Time is Motion” and that motion cannot dilate—only things can dilate.

Steve is ever magnanimous in his claim that, even though relativity set back theoretical physics for over a century, it provides a useful first approximation for certain experiments unexplained by classical mechanics. This is true, despite all the silliness that goes along with it. His analysis of the famous Ives-Stilwell experiment tends to prove it. Table 7-4 on p. 253 of “Disruptive” shows that the mean wavelength for their observed Doppler shift was 15.69, while the value predicted by the relativistic Doppler equation was 15.72. MMT predicts a value of 15.69. The 0.03 difference had been considered measurement error, but the accuracy of the MMT values for all eight of the observations used in the experiment shows this not to be the case. The relativistic equation simply is not good enough.

### Wave-particle Duality

Steve uses Thomas Young’s double slit experiment to reiterate that light is motion—a wave in the aether. He emphasizes and illustrates that multiple wave fronts tend to reinforce each other, producing the interference pattern commonly observed. When actual particles are used in the experiment, similar patterns have been observed. He uses a resuscitated “Pilot Wave Theory” to explain how “bow waves” precede particles, causing waves in the aether similar to those produced by the motion we call light. This all makes more sense than the indeterministic mysteries presented by quantum mechanics fostered by the aether denial common to regressive physics.

All in all, “Disruptive” is a must-read for all progressive physicists and cosmologists. The implications of this book are far reaching. The elimination of relativity also means the elimination of the Big Bang Theory. I find the hype on the back cover to be inadequate. After reading the final copy, I believe more than ever that Steve Bryant is “Nobel-bound.”

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/]

—, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/]

—, 2009, The physical meaning of  E=mc2, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs, CN, p. 27-31. [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643]

—, 2011, Einstein’s most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68. [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407]

[2] Bryant, Steven, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Failure of the relativistic hypercone derivation, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 99-101. [10.13140/RG.2.1.1404.8406]

[3] Michelson, A.A., and Morley, E.W., 1887, On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether: American Journal of Science, v. 39, p. 333-345.

[4] Ives, Herbert E., and Stilwell, G. R., 1938, An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock: Journal of the Optical Society of America, v. 28, no. 7, p. 215-226. [10.1364/JOSA.28.000215]

[5] Sagnac, Georges, 1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710.

—, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413.

[6] Botermann, Benjamin, Bing, Dennis, Geppert, Christopher, Gwinner, Gerald, Hänsch, Theodor W., Huber, Gerhard, Karpuk, Sergei, Krieger, Andreas, Kühl, Thomas, Nörtershäuser, Wilfried, Novotny, Christian, Reinhardt, Sascha, Sánchez, Rodolfo, Schwalm, Dirk, Stöhlker, Thomas, Wolf, Andreas, and Saathoff, Guido, 2014, Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed: Physical Review Letters, v. 113, no. 12, p. 120405.