Contra-indications to the Theory of Relativity

nuclear fusion

Contrary to the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, neither can energy be converted into mass, or can mass be converted into energy. (e = mc^2 is not valid.)

No instance of such conversion can be found.

One commonly cited supposed instance is the conversion of mass in nuclear fusion of tritium nuclei, where there is a smaller mass in the resultant helium (2 protons + 1 neutron) than in its source (3 protons); but, inasmuch as a neutron is simply a proton with its pi-meson retaining that nucleon in a higher internal energy-state than a regular proton (the neutron’s associated negative pi-meson being simply a higher energy-state of the neutral pi-meson associated with a proton), the transformation of a neutron into a proton is simply a release of a quantity of binding-energy of the meson (just as nuclear fission is simply the release of a quantity of binding-energy of the nucleus, likewise with no conversion of mass into energy).


The mass-gain in a charged particle accelerated by an electric field (generated between electromagnets) in a particle-accelerator is no more a result of transformation of electric energy into mass than it is of (the also falsely-assumed by relativity-theory) mass-gain due to increased relative velocity. [There is no mass-gain due simply to increased relative velocity : in every supposed instance of this, there is always propulsive energy (of the propellant electrical field) involved, which would have to be assumed to be the source of the apparent mass-gain, if conversion of energy into mass were actually possible.]

In the collision of the accelerated particle with its target, there is a temporary release of some of the quark-binding energy within the particles colliding : this is the source of the apparent energy-gain (or mass-gain, as the scene is commonly wrongly interpreted). As the scenario would progress in time beyond the instantaneous scene which the cloud-chamber can detect, the energies would be retracted back into the particles whose quarks had temporary released some energy (the release being due to their partial exposure as the result of the collision). [Just as the energy of the Dirac sea, which is always re-absorbed promptly after being emitted, is reckoned as negative (viz., as a energy-debt needing to be compensated); so likewise the quark-binding energies must (because they, whenever exposed, need to be re-absorbed) likewise be reckoned as negative.]

negative time

Particles cannot (contrary to the Theory of Relativity) be reversed in their reactions by moving relatively above the velocity of light (as became exemplified in a hypothesis by Go:del, of half of the universe travelling above the velocity of light relative to the other half, so that the progress of one-half would be exactly cancelled by the progress of the other half). This is no more possible than is anti-matter with its conjectured particles behaving (e.g., thermodynamically) contrary to matter.

No instance of such can be found, whether cosmically or subatomically. [Any alleged instance can be explained in some other, more conventional, way.]

Any authentic instance would, by its intrinsic nature, have to involve either evident energy-debts (viz., negative energy); or else temporary non-interaction due to a shocked (non-excitable) state of temporarily low reactivity; or (most likely) both, perhaps in rapid alternation (permanently so, in order to provide for a permanently contrarily-behaved particle). [An instance a shocked state would be that conventionally accounted-for by (postulated) neutrinos, neutrettos, neutralinos, etc. : such (actually) indetectable particles, proposed to account for calculated energy-deficiencies in the brief glimpse, provided by a cloud-chambre, of the initial state of a reaction, would better be deleted from theory, replacing them with the idea of a temporarily (milliseconds) non-reactive shocked state in the particles actually observed. (Any alleged observation of neutrinos etc. in shielded materials can be easily accounted-for by the intrinsic natural radioactivity of such shielding materials.)]

a practical use for negative energy

One practical use for negative energy would be in cryogenics.

Theoretically, a temperature of below absolute zero could be maintained by a negative-energy generator. At this point, the laws of thermodynamics would operate backwardsly. Since matter cannot be converted into energy, it is impertinent to matter itself whether it is maintained in a state of positive, or of negative, energy. [Matter maintained in a state of negative energy could be designated "anti-matter" if the designator should so wish (though the term "anti-" would then be redundant, and superfluous).]

Since life (biotic beings) are said to operate on negative thermodynamics; therefore is should be abundantly evident that mind is a form of negative energy. Thus, the Dirac sea would be mental rather than physical. [And if the various other "planes of existence" (mentioned by the Theo-sophical and Anthropo-sophical Societies) are to be brought into this sort of context, they may be perhaps considered as vector-fields interrelated by rules analogous with the right-hand and left-hand rules relating electric fields with magnetic fields. (The analogue with magnetism would have a direct opposite, similar to polarity; whereas the analogue with electricity would have merely deviations from the mean, similar to charge. )]

condensation of gravitation into the strong nuclear force

Contrary to the general theory of relativity’s refusal to admit that gravitational force is a form of energy, that it (gravitation) is readily convertible into electromagnetic energy (as seen in hydro-electric generators, etc. – why should the relativity-theory deny so palpable an indication of the energy-content of the gravitational field?),

it is abundantly evident that the reason why "black holes" can never fully form (as was admitted by Einstein – one of the few true statements which he ever made in physics!) is that in the process of compacting nucleons together in an incipient "black hole", the formation of elements more massive than iron would drain off the gravitational energy, in converting it (the gravitational field) into nuclear binding-energy – so that the gravitational field would (temporarily) vanish, resulting in [not only an abundance of heavier nuclei, including uranium, but also] an explosion of the incipient "black hole". If its gravitational energy should dip into the negative (which surely ought to be the case, owing to the extreme energy-consumption in the heavy-nuclei building-process), then that "black hole" must automatically convert itself (also temporarily) into a "white hole" just before violently exploding. And, in case a "white hole" should prove stable, then "white holes" may exist to be observed astronomically, even though no "black hole" doth.