03Sprinkler

Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

Pastor Al’s
‘water sprinkler’
theory of light

1.0 The problem

n another acclaimed thought experiment relating to time dilation, a passenger shines his flashlight in a

mirror

of a moving boxcar as illustrated in

Fig.

. According to relativists, light from the flashlight

travels a

distance

reflects in the mirror, and backtracks, reaching the passenger at

. Since the mirror

and the

flashlight are

moving with the boxcar, the passenger is not aware of any lateral motion of the

beam of light.

Therefore, he

calculates the time for the round-trip beam traveling at the velocity of light

to be:

This is straight forward distance-traveled. You throw the ball directly at the wall and it bounces back.

The

ball

covered the distance to the wall twice.

Fig. 1 The mirror and the flashlight

According to Einstein, however, a distant stationary observer arrives at a different

conclusion. The reason for

this

is that the boxcar together with the passenger is moving

past him at near-c. Therefore, the particles of

light

do not simply go forward and back. The

photons describe an arc in space

(

Fig. 2

)

Fig. 2 The distant observer’s perspective

For the mathematically inclined, let’s also briefly review the relativistic math behind these claims.

Imagine

throwing a

ball up in the air inside a moving car. If the pitcher is to catch it again, the ball could

not have

merely gone up and

down. It must have described an arc in space to account for the motion of

the car.

This is

what the distant

observer sees. Therefore, he calculates the time it took the

photon to do the

round

trip a little

differently than the

passenger:

where TimeP is the amount of time measured by the passenger

and TimeO is the amount of time measured by the distant stationary observer.

Therefore, if the object travels at near-

, Time0 is much greater than TimeP:

As with length contraction and mass increase, the mathematicians encounter paradox when they plug

extreme values

into the equation. As the boxcar approaches the speed of light, the amount of time it

takes

for

the observer to receive

the signal approaches eternity. At exactly the speed of light, the

denominator

goes to

0 and the numerator is in God’s

hands. The signal never reaches our observer and

he might as

well be in

heaven. Under these circumstances, our

mathematicians prefer to tell the layman

that time is

‘undefined’

(whatever that means). This realization led Einstein to

conclude that matter

cannot travel at

the speed of light.

If it did, we could not give a rational physical interpretation to

the

equation.

2.0 Math versus Phyz

gain we have differences between Mathematics and Physics. A ball thrown inside a moving car either

travels

‘straight’ up and down or describes an arc, it can’t be both. If the passenger in his frame of

reference is

unaware of

this phenomenon, the passenger is simply wrong. What he perceives or

believes

is irrelevant in

Physics. It only has

importance to relativists, who exclaim with ignorant pride

that relativity

allows everyone to

have diametrical opinions

and also be right. The question in Einstein’s

gedanken

experiment is whether the

distant observer is correct. Did light

describe an arc in space?

Einstein was obsessed with curvilinear trajectories and could never come around to believe that light

travels

‘straight’. This is the source of his downfall. He died without hope, without understanding

anything

about the

Universe. He believed that space was warped and that light traveled along this

curved ‘surface’.

In 1919, in

reference

to Eddington’s alleged confirmation of his theory, he remarked

that his theory was

correct.

However, he wasn’t as

cocky by the time he died, writing to his friend Besso

in 1954 that:

“ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the

answer to the question,

‘What are light

quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick

and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. …

I consider it quite possible

that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous

structures.

In that case, nothing remains of my

entire castle in the air, gravitation theory

included, [and

of] the rest of modern physics.”

(p. 467)

[

]

His disciples fail to see the painful lesson a lonely Einstein learned before he died. They regard his

tenure

Princeton

as the last days of a senile old man out of touch with science. Of course, the

common folk out

there

aren’t particularly

aware of this and continue to treat the name Einstein as a

synonym of intelligence.

In one of his ludicrous gedanken experiments of his better days, Einstein theorized that a beam of light

traveling from

one wall to another inside a rising elevator is deflected downward by the force of gravity.

Again,

he visualized light as

being unable to travel rectilinearly. (Perhaps Einstein suffered from

astigmatism.)

Fig.

, I illustrate Einstein’s ‘curved light’ obsession and refer to it as the ‘water sprinkler’ theory of

light.

Think of

what would happen to a photon emitted by one of the Sun’s atoms. The atom emits the

lead

particle

straight-ahead.

Since the Sun spins, the same atom sends a second photon right behind

but a

little to the

side. A third photon rushes

out a little further to the side, and so on. In other

words, the entire

beam of

photons originating from a given

atom describes a curved path in space

irrespective of the

presence of mass

in the vicinity. This has to do with the

spinning of the atom, the

spinning of the Sun,

and its orbit around the

galaxy. An atom in the Sun has no way of

sending a series

of discrete particles

‘straight’ to Earth.

Fig. 3 Al’s water sprinkler mechanism of light

3.0 Problems with Einstein's Water Sprinkler Theory of Light

light behaves anything like a water sprinkler, then the predictions of Einstein’s flashlight-

in-the-boxcar

will

not materialize. Allow me to exaggerate the distance from the passenger

to the mirror to make my

point.

Let’s

assume that this distance is 5 light-seconds – the

distance light travels in 5 seconds. (This

implies

that the

boxcar is over 1,500,000 kilometers

in length). If each photon emitted by the flashlight is

affected

by the

motion of the flashlight,

we will have a situation similar to the water sprinkler. The

flashlight emits

the first

photon

and the boxcar moves. Then the flashlight emits a second photon and

the boxcar moves

again. The

series of photons should describe an arc rather than travel rectilinearly.

The first

photon should

hit the side

wall as the car travels to the right and never make it to the mirror

(

Fig.

)

. Surely the passenger

would notice

that the beam never reached the mirror

because he would

not get a reflection. Therefore, the

prediction of

relativity did not

materialize. We have the little d’s and c’

s (quantitative stuff) in place, but no

reflection

(qualitative stuff). So what should the passenger or the

observer conclude now?

If Einstein’s water sprinkler theory of light has its way and the passenger wants to hit the

mirror, he

would

have to point the flashlight obliquely to the region where the mirror will be

in 5 seconds

(

Fig.

)

. But then,

Einstein’s ‘curvilinear’ light violates almost every basic

experiment ever performed with

light, beginning

with

the

Principle of Ray Reversibility

(PRR). The opticians routinely show

in every one of their

experiments

that

light

travels rectilinearly. Therefore, relativists should settle their

differences with the

opticians

before

publishing further nonsense. Experimentation refutes relativity’s

curved path theory

of light.

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

The water sprinkler theory of
light applied to Al’s boxcar
experiment.

If light travels curvilinearly as
Einstein suggested (the water
sprinkler theory of light), you
would have to point your flashlight
to the region where the mirror will
be in 5 seconds if you want to
receive a reflection. This proposal
violates prac-tically all experiments
of Optics.

In addition, if light travels in curves, we cannot talk about velocity. Velocity is a vector

quantity: its

direction

parallel to a straight line. Hence, Einstein’s water sprinkler

mechanism is at odds with the

definition of

velocity

and with what opticians routinely

observe in the field. As far as we know, light

always travels

rectilinearly and

we should talk

about the velocity rather than the speed of light. It is

Einstein’s warped

canvas theory that

requires a curvilinearly-traveling particle.

The idiot of Mathematics has been brainwashed to answer like a zombie: Young’s slit

experiment

proves that

light travels in curves (i.e., diffracts). What he cannot explain is why

at the same distances,

the opticians can

show that light travels absolutely ‘straight’. We

have to resolve once and for all

whether light travels

rectilinearly

or curvilinearly.

Another famous reply is the geodesic. Relativists have made the geodesic

unfalsifiably straight,

curved, rectilinear, and curvilinear. What is there to argue with such a formidable

hypothesis?

ut now let’s add a higher degree of complexity. What do you think would be the result in

Einstein’s

flashlight

experiment if we assume that light is a continuous wave, an inexhaustible

river flowing out of

the flashlight?

What if a wave – once emitted – remains permanently

straight? Think of the flashlight as

one of those

StarWars-type light swords: the light always

remains parallel with the flashlight, straight as

an arrow! No

matter

what! (Again, focus your

attention on what a wave is rather than on how it moves.)

In order for light to

touch

the mirror,

the passenger merely has to point it directly at the mirror. However,

the passenger must first

wait 5

seconds for the wave front to reach the mirror. Then, as long as he is not

foolish

enough to turn the

flashlight

off or interrupt its extension with nearby objects, the passenger

can brighten far away objects

instantaneously

by simply tilting the flashlight. The straight

wave

hypothesis violates the well-established

concept of velocity

of light. If light can touch

distant objects

instantaneously, light does not travel at c.

So even if Einstein’s boxcar experiments don’t tell us

much

about time dilation, they are good

exercises to

elucidate

the true nature of light. Before we can accept Einstein’s explanation for

the mirror experiment,

must first

determine the architecture of light. Without this, Einstein

has nothing, and Mathematics

certainly

won’t help

him. How can light travel rectilinearly at the

same time that it curves? This is the

question that has

stumped

relativists for a hundred

years. I reply

here

If you wanna shower all
them tomaters with
photons, the sprinkler's
gonna have to spin.

The passenger (P) points his flashlight at the mirror
and light travels this distance roundtrip. The
passenger measures the distance (d) as if the beam
described a rectilinear itinerary. In the Monastery of
Relativity, the monks equate static distance (a
photograph) with dynamic distance traveled (a
movie). In the foregoing equation, TimeP is the time
measured (with a clock) by a passenger traveling on
the train. Since the passenger does not perceive
motion, his measurement is no different than if you
took the measurement in your house (motionless
scenario).

The boxcar is moving towards the right as the photon leaves the flashlight. According to
the passenger (P), the ray of light bounced off the mirror and returned in a straight line.
However, the distant observer (O) should see that light described an arc in space. Think
of this as throwing a ball straight up in the air while traveling in a car. If you catch the ball
again it is because the ball also moved in the direction of the car.

Every atom that comprises the Sun
emits a series of photons. However,
a spinning Sun should send the
series of photons coming out of one
atom like a rotating sprinkler system
shoots out drops of water. The entire
stream of photons should describe
a curve in space. If relativists
hypothesize that light consists of
particles, they will unavoidably end
up with the water sprinkler
mechanism of light.

While inside a boxcar, you point your
flashlight at a mirror located 1.5
million km away. Meanwhile, the
boxcar moves to the right of the page
with you in it. Will the first photon hit
the mirror or the side of the boxcar
(left side)? Will a stream of photons
travel rectilinearly or curvilinearly?