“Proof” that Santa’s Reindeer Can Fly & Misconceptions of Math
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." -- Nikola Tesla
There is a difference between nature's objective math, which is discovered... versus man's subjective math, which is invented.
The Pythagorean theorem and the Fibonacci sequence are discovered from nature's math. The rules of optics and 3D Euclidean geometry are discovered, nature's objective math. Laws of Thermodynamics are discovered.
In the context of science, "proof" is math. Here is the terminology I use and the foundation of speech to discuss scientific topics and communicate ideas in physics.
Nature's math is discovered... but the math of Einstein's relativity (Lorentz invariance) is man's invented and subjective math. Relativity is like the common core of physics. It's a convoluted route and an artifice which happens to yield predictive power and accuracy on paper… but does so by inventing variables that do not exist in reality. Despite its successes, relativity is not ontologically true as a representative of how end results arise in nature.
Aether theory was Galilean Invariance. (Invented math)
Relativity theory is Lorentz Invariance. (Invented math)
Both of those mathematical approaches insist the speed of light never changes. It's claimed the invariance of c has been conclusively validated over the decades. But it's an illusion due to local re-emission from the electron's own frame of reference... from the electrons making up the interferometers, the sensors and all measuring devices. Thus the nullified results in optics, etc.
As Einstein himself wrote in a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich in August of 1913:
"Wenn die Lichtgeschwindigkeit auch nur ein bißchen von der Geschwindigkeit der Lichtquelle abhängig ist, dann ist meine ganze Relativitätstheorie und Gravitationstheorie falsch."
"If the velocity of light is even a little bit dependent upon the velocity of the light source, then my ENTIRE theory of Relativity and theory of Gravitation is false."
It turns out, the velocity of light is indeed dependent upon the velocity of the light source.
Here is exactly why.
Doppler Effect Misnomer 2:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2016227860886032837?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Doppler Effect Misnomer 3:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2018196525017714953?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Michaelson-Morley's Interferometer Experiments - The Fallacy of Fringe Shifts:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/2023185620676550857?s=20
You can derive equations to suggest the Doppler Effect is a frequency shift of the same electromagnetic wavepacket being constantly distorted within the same frame of reference due to a 4th dimensional space-time medium while the velocity of light is invariant at c.... or .... you can derive equations to suggest the Doppler Effect is a misnomer... and actually arises from a constant re-emission of brand-new electromagnetic wavepackets in 3D Euclidean space, due to a constantly changing frame of reference, without need for any medium. Both interpretations yield equal predictive power and accuracy on paper, but both frameworks are mutually exclusive.
Which means both cannot be ontologically true.
The Ontologically True Physics of Re-Emission:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2045996230959063393?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Propagation and Re-Emission of Light:
https://www.extinctionshift.com/details03.htm
In Science, evidence and proof are two completely different things.
Proof is simply math. Experiments and observations do not produce Greek letters and numbers and equations. The equations describe the evidence after it's collected through experimentation and observation.
Here is an example of the difference between evidence and proof.
Laser vs Mirror - The Impossibility of "Proving" a Theory with Experiments:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/17882844528436922
More context to the the difference of Psyence versus Science.
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/2015487606717637108?s=20
But that's what relativity does… it in invents variables that do not exist like space-time or the 4th dimension to conflate the actual scenario in an attempt to explain the end results mathematically. But by using an erroneous framework.
Sure, you can derive equations suggesting dark energy/dark matter or space-time curvature or aether attracts Casimir plates together from the inside.
Or, you can derive equations suggesting the plates are pushed together from the outside due to a cancellation of existing radiation pressure. None of the esoteric variables of the invariant models needed.
Here is an example:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2056899469699055936?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
The force per unit area between the parallel plates is:
F/A = - π²ℏc/240a^4 and the experiments match that mathematical route beautifully. No argument there! Where the frameworks diverge is in WHY those modes exist and why the pressure imbalance appears at all.
The multiple interpretations to the mechanism are completely different. Maxwell's approach has no ħ, no quantization. That approach predicts zero force at zero temperature between neutral plates.
But T= 0 is theoretical and has never been reached to test or rule out.
But I agree that there would be no push force or the plates would not go together at T= 0.
The radiation pressure that does the pushing only arises once you quantize the field and include the "zero-point" fluctuations (on paper). That's why the formula contains ħ and c in that specific combination. On the "variables not real" point... if you're referring to the infinite vacuum-energy sums or literal virtual particles as physical entities, many physicists agree they're mathematical artifices. Not real. I am referring to the variables of space-time, aether, dark matter and dark energy. Those are not ontologically real or true.
You can mathematically "prove" all of those things on paper to suggest that the plates are pulled together or attracted together due to the aforementioned variables, but none of those things are real. Even though the invariant frameworks can indeed yield amazing predictive power to suggest the plates will move together. The equations show accuracy on how fast they move together, with how much force and all of that. But the math to describe them being pulled together is erroneous and nonsense. Even though there are indeed math equations that can accurately describe that interpretation on paper.
Which means math is not the end all be all validator to interpreting how the end results arise. Math has an amazing ability to derive accurate predictions and solutions even if you make up nonsensical variables like space-time or aether.
No space-time:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1974985998749819334?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
No Aether 1:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1863275517862125670?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Is Aether Real?
Relativity vs Reality Part 3/71
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1767274194407219663?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
The following 4 pages come from a chapter in my Book 2 on GRAVITY from my 4 books series called Galilean Variance - The Rebirth of Classical Physics
I strongly encourage people to go through this thread on gravity from some of my posts and an excerpt from an interview I had with Bob Tuskin.
Addressing Gravity (Thread):
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2032198955812208821?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Book 2 of 4 - GRAVITY
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2012797778716733588?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Gravity is Not Electric - Gravity is Not Space-Time Curvature:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2014074776223097070?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
The point is to demonstrate that even though Santa doesn't exist and reindeer can't fly... you can still derive equations AS IF those things are real. But they aren't real. So how can you write equations for things that aren't real?!
Easy... you make up dimensions that don't exist as an artifice/ mathematical crutch, and you can "prove" anything you want... on paper. But again... demonstrating that which you are "proving" on paper is a different story in reality.
Relativity and Lorentz transformations, metric tensors, the 4th dimension, 5th dimension, space-time, velocity dependent mass, length contraction, time dilation, particle-wave duality, literal interchanges of mass/energy.... those aren't real. Relativity does an amazing job at deriving equations AS IF those variables are real. But the world has wrongfully taken those concepts as literal.
AS IF does Not equal Literal
AS IF ≠ Literal
Relativity vs Reality 64/71
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1776992916168376511?s=20
Multiple interpretations fit the data.
Refusing to compare them publicly doesn't make one interpretation disappear. It just leaves people wondering why the comparison is off-limits.
So you can't say this new approach is mathematically "wrong" because it indeed yields the same solutions for:
• GPS accuracy
• Discreet redshift values
• Doppler Shift
• Michelson-Morley fringes
• Nullified results in optics
• Optical gyroscopes
• The Sagnac effect
• Shapiro delay
• The Pound-Rebka effect
• The Mossbauer effect
• Ives-Stillwell experiment
• Hafele-Keating experiment
• Muon decay
• The Perihelion of Mercury
• Binary pulsars
• High gamma ray tests
• Hubble tension
• The Deflection of light
• De Sitter's Double Star experiment
• Cherenkov radiation
• Partial Fizeau drag
• The Double slit experiment
• Maxwell/Heaviside equations
• The Photoelectric Effect
and ALL tests and experiments/ observations attributed to relativity.
So... who cares that math equations can explain how Santa's reindeer fly?
Who cares that metric tensors can explain how space-time curves to generate gravity or how time literally dilates, etc?!
People need to understand that math can be used to concoct any variables it wants with however many non-existent dimensions someone wants. Like Pharis Williams’ BS 5D framework, or the outdated Kaluza-Klein model, or even the Alfven-Klein model. No esoteric hyper-dimensions or nonsensical media required.
Why continue with an artifice that is not literally true when there is an alternative framework which is ontologically true and claims to accurately represent nature's processes?!
What are the implications of this interpretation being true?
What are the implications of ignoring or dismissing the validity versus stress testing it and embracing it if it passes muster?
My aim is to stand firmly with internal consistency and logic. To show an equivalence to all relativistic procedures without need for corrections. And my goal is to have people understand my point of view before accepting or rejecting it.
Here are some more examples of math not always math'n'.
The Misconception of Kirchhoff's "Law":
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1987194179408257103?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
The 4th Law of Thermodynamics
Intensive & Extensive Properties - Thermodynamic Balance:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2018115757822075034?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Proper Model of Optics - Light, Color and Shadows:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1899879205774700771?s=20
Challenges to Relativity (Thread) Dr. Edward Dowdye's Extinction Shift Principle:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1901318050428948870?s=20
An Ideal Inelastic Collision Model using Center-of-Mass Frames Shows Conservation of Kinetic Energy
https://web.archive.org/web/20220120225127/http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindingsInelastic.htm
Dr. Paul Brown's Resonant Nuclear Battery:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2014975137117044876?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Optics, Electrodynamics & Gravitation based from Re-Worked classical physics/ Galilean Transformations under Euclidean Space:
https://www.extinctionshift.com/short_present/ViewGraph_English.pdf
Discourses & Mathematical Illustrations Pertaining to Extinction Shift Principle Under the Electrodynamics of Galilean Transformations:
https://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Mathematical-Illustrations-Electrodynamics-Transformations/dp/0963447157
Why Should We Question Relativity? (FAQs):
http://extinctionshift.com/FAQ.htm
Alternative to the Perihelion of Mercury:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1781769063137706293?s=20
The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity:
https://steemit.com/science/@verbz/the-rebirth-of-classic-physics-light-time-and-gravity-jason-verbelli
71 Part Video Series
(Each vid is 1 min - 1 and a half min)
Relativity vs Reality:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1766194798187475358
Indoctrination versus Education (Thread):
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1900300854537928791?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Lighter Flick From Mars - Absolute Time Scenario:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/2048476524819726643?s=20
Mind Melting Thought Experiment About Absolute Time:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1832848624822473187
Needless to say... It's is objectively convincing that there's more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. Just because I've mathematically "proven" Santa's reindeer can fly... that doesn't mean the math is accurately describing nature or reality.
Thank you for your valuable time and your interest.
Respectfully,
Jason Verbelli, Founder of Galilean Variance
https://galileanvariance.com
(Website is getting overhauled)