# Relativity is Dead {© 01/10/18}

This web page contains the reasons established by Keith Dixon-Roche as to why the theories of relativity can no longer be considered as a valid description of the behaviour of nature's matter.

For reasons of brevity, the theories of general and special relativity shall be referred to as 'Relativity' and the author of these theories as the 'Author'.

## The Problem with Relativity

This web page includes numerous reasons why Relativity can no longer be considered appropriate for orbital motion, the most significant of which are:

1) All orbits work perfectly according to Newton's laws of orbital motion irrespective of conditions. Relativity is therefore unnecessary.

2) It does not comply with many aspects of Newton’s laws of orbital motion

3) It is based upon Emc² applying to matter in free-flight, which is incorrect.

4) It was developed to support a formula that was based upon photons, which don't exist.

Just one, or even two of the **Reasons 1** to **6** below could be chalked up to coincidence, but all six!

Whilst it is possible to create a sub-theory to explain any distortion of reality you wish, why would you if there is no need?

When everything in the universe can be explained without a sub-theory, the sub-theory becomes redundant.

Relativity was driven by a desire to explain events that were either unknown or misunderstood. Now that we fully understand the theory behind all orbital systems, Relativity has become redundant, especially as it actually invalidates Newton’s laws of orbital motion, that otherwise work perfectly, in every respect; *irrespective of orbital shape or performance*.

It seems clear that Relativity must be declared 'dead in the water'

## Reason 1: Light Deflection

Light is apparently observed to deflect by an angle of 1.75 arc-seconds when passing at or close to the surface of our sun (Fig 1; α).

Fig 1. The Angle of Light Deflection when Passing a Celestial Body

According to the Author, however, Isaac Newton’s laws of gravity predict a deflection angle of half this value (0.875)

Relativity is a mathematical description of space-time/gravity distortion around celestial bodies that was developed to support the Author's formula for observed light deflection angles, which was based upon 'light-emitting photons' and their susceptibility to gravity.

The problem with his formula, is that the light we see all around us is electro-magnetic energy, and therefore possesses no mass, so gravitational laws don’t apply.

Fig 2. A vs B vs G

On the other hand, Newton’s gravitational constant (G), which is based upon the properties of Quanta, may be used to define the same deflection angle (α) as follows:

α = Atan(4.aₒ.Vs / R) {~~m³.m~~ / ~~m³.m~~} **#1**

Where:

G = aₒ.c²/ρᵤ {m³ / kg.s² per m³}

Vs = ms/ρᵤ {m³}

ms = the mass of our sun {kg}

ρᵤ = the ultimate density {kg/m³}

aₒ = Bohr's radius {m}

c = the speed of light in a vacuum {m/s}

When calculating light deflection angles, the Author reduced the size of our sun by a factor of 5000, retaining its correct mass and increasing its density accordingly. Presumably, this was done to raise the calculated angles to a practical value.

Fig 2: Curve A shows the variation in 'α' according to Relativity, from the surface of the above modified sun to a distance 5E+05m from its centre.

Fig 2: Curve B shows the equivalent variation in 'α', according to the Author, when using Newton’s laws of gravity

Fig 2: Curve G; if, on the other hand, we plot the light deflection angles using formula **#1** (above), which is based upon Newton’s gravitational constant, we reproduce the same light deflection angles as those predicted in Relativity. The difference being that this formula, which is not based upon gravity, does not need a sub-theory to justify it.

It is important to understand that it isn't necessary to prove the validity of an alternative theory in order to discredit the original. You only need to demonstrate that the same result may be achieved by applying valid input data to an identical model but without the need for a sub-theory for justification. The above formula does exactly that.

## Reason 2: Speed-of-Light

It is currently claimed by all physicists that photons exist and that the light we see is emitted by them.

They also claim that electrons are 'weird beasts' that possess mass and travel in waves and this is the reason we cannot pin them down (uncertainty principle).

This is difficult to understand given that if the entire electro-magnetic spectrum ranges between <2E-14m and >7m (visible light is radiated between 4E-07m and 8E-07m), how can all photons travel at the same velocity. Surely, they must travel at speeds right across the range from >0 to 'c' in order to represent the full range of electro-magnetic energy.

For example; an electron travelling at 1E+06m/s will possess a different energy to one travelling at 1E+08m/s. The electro-magnetic energy (wavelength; e.g. colour) each radiates must, therefore, also be different.

And if so, different wavelengths of light must be deflected at different angles (Reason 1: α) according to Newton's laws of gravitational attraction.

*light possesses mass*" and

*all*wavelengths of light passing the same celestial body at the same radial distance is deflected at the same angle (α).

The light we see cannot be photons, it must be electro-magnetic energy, which possesses no mass.

Therefore, not only is it *unnecessary* to deform space-time around celestial bodies in order to explain the deflection of light, it is mathematically incorrect to do so.

## Reason 3: Neutronic Radius (Rn)

It can be shown that the neutron is created by combining a proton with an electron at the neutronic radius (Rn).

And that the neutronic radius (Rn) is a fundamental physical constant that occurs at the speed of light, and can only be explained with Newton’s laws of orbital motion and Coulomb's law of electrical force.

The conversion of mass to energy with velocity together with the space-time/gravitational distortion around force-centres as defined in Relativity, would render this radius impossible.

## Reason 4: Elliptical Orbits

Elliptical orbits are an indisputable fact of nature. This has been repeatedly demonstrated since Kepler’s discovery in the 17th century. Its mathematical laws show that the elliptical shape is fundamental to the maintenance of perpetual-forward motion and the the balancing of gravitational and centrifugal forces in non-circular orbits.

Fig 3. Relativity vs Newton (Earth Orbiting its Sun)

According to Relativity, the gravitational energy between a satellite and a force-centre

(PE = g.m.R), and therefore 'g', varies with radial distance from the force-centre.

We know pretty accurately the distance of the earth from the sun at any time through its orbit. From this information we can confirm that the earth’s orbit follows an exact ellipse.

We also know that one second (of time) in summer is exactly the same as a period of one second in winter, therefore time does not vary with orbital radius.

If, however, we alter time according to relativity (TAB = RAB - ½.gAB.R)**#** this balance will shift (Fig 3), i.e. the earth’s orbital shape is no longer an ellipse. Therefore, either the perigee distance or the apogee distance (or both) would no longer be as we see (measure) it.

Fig 3 demonstrates that if Relativitivism was valid, the gravitational and centrifugal forces between a satellite and its force-centre would not balance at its orbit.

Moreover, every orbit calculated (well over 200) in the creation of this publication shows that there is no orbital deviation (at all), of any moon or planet in our solar system from its elliptical shape, irrespective of the size of the orbit from the observed values as published by NASA.

# The units within this formula cannot be reconciled without a sub-theory. Such a problem does not occur in any of Isaac Newton’s theories.

## Reason 5: E=mc²

E=mc² was first postulated by Henri Poincaré towards the end of the 19th century, however, he did not explain its physical relevance other than it represented a terminal velocity.

Keith Dixon-Roche has discovered that this relationship represents the potential energy between an orbiting electron and its proton at which they unite to become a neutron;

PE = -2.KE

KE = ½.m.v²; PE = m.v²

and at the speed of light, an electron orbits its proton at radius Rn, which is a fundamental constant (magnetic constant: mₑ.Rn/e² = 1E-07 kg.m/C²) where PE = m.c² at the creation of a neutron.

Whilst Poincaré’s formula (E = m.c²) does indeed represent a terminal velocity, it *only* applies to the speed of an orbiting electron at which electrical and magnetic attractive energy exceeds centrifugal repulsion energy and it combines with a proton to create a neutron. It does not refer to an electron (or any other matter) in free-flight travelling at the speed of light.

'E=m.c²' refers to potential energy, not kinetic energy.

E=mc², which only applies to orbital velocity, is the reason for the neutron (see Reason 3 above). It does not apply to matter in free-flight and **mass does not vary with velocity**.

This means that in Relativity, E=mc² has been inappropriately applied to kinetic energy to describe mass-energy variation with velocity, which does not actually occur; mass does not vary with velocity as there is no such thing as mass.

## Reason 6: Hades

At the time Relativity was theorised, neither the Author, nor any other individual was aware that there must [by law of nature] be a force-centres at the heart of every orbital system. Nor was he aware of [planetary] spin theory, and therefore misunderstood the effect of galactic population on orbital shapes; hence the prediction of dark matter.

It is now possible, not only to use this basic law of nature to disprove the existence of dark matter, but also to calculate their size; for example; Hades

### Further Reading

You will find further reading on this subject in reference publications^{(68, 69, & 70)}

**Go to our store**