Hello from your newest member

Hello all,
I've just signed up, and as my first post, I thought I'd share a bit of the collection of photos I have at home (some of you may have already seen a few of them).

As the samsonfish aggregation season is pretty much over (I'd still go out and fish for them, but probably not on a charter at this time of year), I thought I'd share my joy of experiencing the season that was (05-06).

My only regret is that I failed to break the 100lb mark.


[img_assist|fid=16146|thumb=1|alt=6 and 7kg skippy]
Anyway, at the start, there were many welcome non-samsonfish catches. Large 6-8kg Skipjack Trevally were fun to warm up on.

[img_assist|fid=16143|thumb=1|alt=16kg AJ]
And I'd still trade in 8 Samsonfish for 1 Amberjack (quality not quantity ;))
although they were not the easiest fish to find.

[img_assist|fid=16140|thumb=1|alt=aj and herring]
Here's a funny little picture I took just before a barbeque of an amberjack with a herring :)

[img_assist|fid=16167|thumb=1|alt=smith under load]
And my 2 months away from Perth were not spent in vain, however, money to pay for tackle most certainly was.

[img_assist|fid=16164|thumb=1|alt=on deanos boat]
Anyway, this was what it was all about.

See ya out on the water!
KC Leong

SHizz's picture

Posts: 1556

Date Joined: 07/08/05

Welcome to Fishwrecked mate,

Thu, 2006-03-02 19:15

Welcome to Fishwrecked mate, hope you enjoy your stay .

Adam Gallash's picture

Posts: 15293

Date Joined: 29/11/05


Thu, 2006-03-02 19:39

Awesome photos KC! Looks like you had an awesome time out there this season too! Welcome mate, hope to see some more photos soon :)



Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance

honsu chin's picture

Posts: 2086

Date Joined: 20/09/05

hehe...yeah man welcome I

Fri, 2006-03-03 00:23

hehe...yeah man welcome
I didnt know the Uni lets you clean fish on campus ground....especially their footpath!! hehe




Posts: 148

Date Joined: 20/07/05

welcome aboard kc, some nice

Fri, 2006-03-03 09:18

welcome aboard kc, some nice pics there keep it up. Cant wait for the next jigging season already hahahaha.

mitch's picture

Posts: 1285

Date Joined: 14/08/05


Fri, 2006-03-03 14:39

gidday KC ,this site is the one mate.
some big fishies pics there and your right i reckon half the members have seen them
always next time to break that 100lb barrier.by the way how many people do you know of that got a 100 pounder this season ,ssssshhhhhh it would take some lifting for a photo after just winching from the deep
always in it just the depth that varies

Adam Gallash's picture

Posts: 15293

Date Joined: 29/11/05

100 pounders

Fri, 2006-03-03 14:49

Can't say I've seen or heard any 100lb barriers being broken around the place.. Love to see the photos if it has! Must say I've seen a few of those photos around the place, but still glad that you shared them with us here. I'm more than sure you will have made a few of the international site visitors jealous with some of those jigging piccies.

That last sambo is one ppphat mumma! What do you reckon that would weigh in at?


Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance

Kasey L.'s picture

Posts: 1390

Date Joined: 02/03/06

Best guess at the last sambo

Sat, 2006-03-04 14:25

Best guess at the last sambo was 80lb..

Well, I know of at least 5 anglers who have broken the 100lb mark (45kg+) this season on a samsonfish... And have been told of and shown a few more numbers in pics. Twice it happened right next to me :@

Adam, keep your ears open! ;) ;)
Wanna take a guess at the biggest Amberjack landed this season? Its 35kg, unless someone can show me otherwise.. (from the many private boats out there...)

Ok, I'll provide fuel for your dreams of the 100lb-er with the following pics (Courtesy of joseph, I hope ya dont mind ;))

1st fish is 50kg, 2nd is 45 (i think)

I can't seem to upload it at the moment, so you will have to wait until later..


Kasey L.'s picture

Posts: 1390

Date Joined: 02/03/06

pics of old fish..

Sat, 2006-03-04 14:27

yeah.. and sorry most of the pics have been posted up at least once before..
It just means I havent been out enough :(
And all the other fish haven't been too interesting...

Kasey L.'s picture

Posts: 1390

Date Joined: 02/03/06

50kg... looks more

Mon, 2006-03-06 03:36

[img_assist|fid=16344|thumb=1|alt=jos 2]
50kg... looks more like a GT than a sambo

[img_assist|fid=16341|thumb=1|alt=jos fish]

Theres 2 100lb+ fish for ya, caught on the same day, amongst others ;)

streetfighter80's picture

Posts: 1079

Date Joined: 12/02/06

very nice fish mate

Mon, 2006-03-06 07:56

very nice fish mate

Adam Gallash's picture

Posts: 15293

Date Joined: 29/11/05


Mon, 2006-03-06 23:27

How long ago was this Kasey? Haven't seen any that big out there this season, well not landed by us. :)


Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance

Kasey L.'s picture

Posts: 1390

Date Joined: 02/03/06

hmm 2nd week of November...

Tue, 2006-03-07 00:19

2nd week of November... you can tell who's craft it is :)
November is technically still this season (beginning?)
im not sure if it was weighed or estimated, you'll have to ask the skipper of that boat. he would have the full picture of the biggest and the numbers this season.

and then the following wkend I went out, and Rob C pulls one up right next to me that bottoms the scales aboard Blue Juice (scale max was 45kg). imagine my anger... grr ;)
also, it seems the blue will be abit different next season... well without joff and 25 fishos aboard, i'll politely decline.

anyway, it seems if you want a BIG fish, November-ish to Dec is the go. Feb = 25-30kg-ish average fish, and skinny too.
None of that bulging beer-gut, i would have thought a 1500mm fish in Nov would give the 100lb mark a run for the money, but catch that fish again in Feb and it would have lost ALOT of weight.

what can i say adam, theres always next season :)
and alot of time to ponder and blow money on gear in between :)

Salmo's picture

Posts: 913

Date Joined: 15/08/05

G'Day number one deckie

Tue, 2006-03-07 16:38

Good to see you made it here Kasey....

we need to get out one of these nice nights this week....My brother fish 5FB last night...got 2 dhuies prick.....I wasted 4 good hours on the swan soaking baits around Blackwall Reach....for zip

Kasey L.'s picture

Posts: 1390

Date Joined: 02/03/06

Flywest.. I see what you're

Tue, 2006-03-07 18:27

I see what you're trying to say, but I beg to differ with you. No doubt there would be Sambos following cray boats, I'm sure, but the bulk of fish are there to spawn. The girth comes from the added weight of milk/eggs, and I suppose the weight they put on in preparation to school and spawn. At the end of the season, after schoolign up in the thousands, they've released their eggs/ milk (minus a couple of kilos there) and I suspect food would be hard to come by to satisfy the hunger of such large schools (size of football ovals, and 20-30m deep usually), hence they lose alot of bulk and get veeeery skinny. However, don't quote me on that, its just what I've been lead to suspect. Theres alot of people who are involed in the research of this fish and are doing their PhDs on it at my uni. If you really want to know, they would be the people with the answers, if anyone. All i'm hoping to do is point in the right direction.

Anyway, its no secret where they congregate. In fact, that big fat 80lb was caught on a 5.5m private vessel, with no help from the sounder as it could not even reach bottom. And it wasn't THAT deep, relatively speaking. Simple as get out to your spot, and blindly jig, when in season. Ain't hard to find, and ain't hard to catch ;)

There are certain ways that are supposed to raise the chances of catching the big one... but if all is revealed, then there wouldn't be any fun. ;)

But, those pesky 20-30 kg-ish fish keep getting in my way! :(

Kasey L.'s picture

Posts: 1390

Date Joined: 02/03/06

On a more serious and

Tue, 2006-03-07 18:42

On a more serious and non-sambo related note,

What were you trying to catch, pinkies??????

Sheesh. ;) ;)


Posts: 485

Date Joined: 04/02/06

Novembers when cray season starts!

Tue, 2006-03-07 12:40

15 November is when cray seson starts, and the big sambo's ain't dumb - they know they get a free feed at very pot lift (yesterdays discarded bait) if they follow the cray boats!

So - as the season progresses, the sambo's actually should put on MORE weight from all the free food!

Trouble is they also follow the pro lobster boats wherever they go, such as out over the edge of the shelf when they fish the deeps - so finding them isn't always easey, sometimes tis only the young dumb ones left within striking range of smaller rec boats.

For example with the sambo's at say the Abrolhos Islands - the cray season doesn't open out there until March 15 so they start to get bigger n beefier from March to June!

Thats what I reckon anyway - others catch results may indicate different!


Posts: 39

Date Joined: 11/02/06

I`m with Kasey

Tue, 2006-03-07 20:26

Surely Flywest when you have spawning aggregations of this size you can`t tell me that the big boys (Alpha males and tarts)leave all the downstairs action to the little fellas and go chasing cray boats for a feed (I know what happen at the Abrolhos but that is not rooting season)
I reckon the big boys have all the tarts locked up and are too busy to chase a jig once the aggregation gets to a certain size , remember the story about the old bull and the young bull ??
Kasey I think it would be great if you could get some of the UNI guys to post up some of their research results as I for one are very interested in learning more about the species that we chase . It amazed me when Sambos tagged off Rotto were recaptured off Esperance which almost makes them a pelagic species (I think ) so if they go home to the same general area it would be an interesting trip home -- next stop Augusta -- next stop Black Point etc etc .And if all they have had to eat is spanners , sinkers and jigs there would want to be a few decent roadhouses on the way , also their departure last week seems to have coincided with the first decent flow of the Leeuwin current so does their departure then mean they wait for the baitfish to fill the atnk and then get a free ride halfway home.
And does the Northern population come down to the metro rootfest or have they got their own spawning aggregation somewhere else that is yet to be discovered .... be interesting to know.Especially as I can`t imagime them swimmimg back against the Leeuwin.
I have personally pulled 100+lb Sambos out of 6m of water at the Abrolhos and can tell you it takes a bit more angling than hoiking them out of 100+m , would love to have some footage for you but will have to wait till next time
Anyway appreciate any more input especially from the uni guys that may have some FACTS.

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 22/11/05

Quote Baglimitboy:I reckon

Tue, 2006-03-07 20:47

Baglimitboy wrote:
I reckon the big boys have all the tarts locked up and are too busy to chase a jig once the aggregation gets to a certain size , remember the story about the old bull and the young bull ??

Bags, Sambo's are serial spawner's, which means they go go and go.What happens when the female is ready, she shoots up through the school releasing her eggs.The males follow dispersing their sperm.Pinkies do the same thing in Cockburn.Its why you will usually find the bigger fish down the bottom of the school, hence high % are actually female.Ask the PHD guy ( wink)

Fly west, you would need a whole seasons discarded bait too fill just one of these aggregations,They are there for one reason and that is too multiply.


Kasey L.'s picture

Posts: 1390

Date Joined: 02/03/06

quoted from wangler... For

Tue, 2006-03-07 21:05

quoted from wangler...

For more information about this project or to register your interest drop us a line
Andrew Rowland at Murdoch University

Dr Mike Mackie - 9203 0209
Paul Lewis – 9203 0203
at the Department of Fisheries Western Australia


bleh, i cant seem to find anything off the net or the top of my head...
and i bet you do not want to read a whole thesis.

best bet is to contact them (who knows how many committed fishos already have)

adam, wouldnt you be able to find some info?

Posts: 39

Date Joined: 11/02/06


Tue, 2006-03-07 21:17

Got the point Wal I am not completely anatomically bankrupt when it comes to piscatorial porn I was merely musing after some of the points raised by earlier punters .
Should have a breathalyser on the computer.

Posts: 39

Date Joined: 11/02/06


Tue, 2006-03-07 21:31

I don`t mind reading a thesis Kasey but it would be nice if we could get these guys to post a precis of their results to date in laymans terms for all interested punters to peruse.

Posts: 485

Date Joined: 04/02/06

Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive?

Tue, 2006-03-07 23:32

but I beg to differ with you.

You don't need to beg! Just post up as you have is fine! ;o)

Your all entitled to your opinion! (As am I!).

Your also entitled to express it publicly! (As am I!).

Need the two necessarily be mutually exclusive?
i.e - need the spawning aggregations and where the cray boats are fishing, necessarily be two different places? (Food for thought!).

IMHO - any science study of a species is good! How much will it tell us? Will it replace the collective experience of a few generations of Lobster fishers who've been feeding sambos since they were kids!

Anectdotal information is not to be totaly dismissed in favour of test tube science IMHO!

Science on marine fishes is not exactly an 'exact science' as yet, but it is getting better!

Do sampson fish stop feeding during spawning? (Answer = NO!)

Yes they will lose milt and eggs - but in % proportion to their body mass this is small potatoes IMHO as they are serial spawners - in all likelyhood producing more milt eggs rather rapidly as subsequent occasions require!.

Any serious study of the issue you raise (of the seriola clans weight gain/loss) would take into account - the quantities of bait discarded from lobster boats because it is significant (IMHO). WAFIC report in Oct 2001, By Fisheries Dept research scientist Dr B Jones indicated something in the vicinity of 20,000 tonnes anually! (Between 600 boats over 8 months duration - you do the daily math in Kg's per boat!)

IMHO - If you want to explain rapid weight loss within the seriola clan - try looking at severe parasitic tissue worm infestation - which is rampant within the species, as they age, in my experience. You won't find this out with catch and release tagging studies obviously, - you will actually need to dissect a few!.

Most of the old time cray boys won't eat big sambo due to the worm burden in the flesh, however - in days gone bye they did used to put the odd one in a cray pot for bait!

Like I said, don't dismiss anectdotal information, in your research! (or your thesis might not pass peer review by someone as pernicious as me! ;o) (more food for thought!).


Adam Gallash's picture

Posts: 15293

Date Joined: 29/11/05


Wed, 2006-03-08 09:06

Are you able to speak to anyone at Murdoch to answer a few of these questions/theories KC? or should I email one of the above contacts. I would like to read some of their findings and get a bit more information out of the guys that do the scientific research. We have had some anectdotal experience, now to add a dash of scientific analysis and we might be able to come up with some good information that will benefit us all.


Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance

Kasey L.'s picture

Posts: 1390

Date Joined: 02/03/06

Firstly, a seemingly

Wed, 2006-03-08 11:34

Firstly, a seemingly 'scientific' report like this..
'WAFIC report in Oct 2001, By Fisheries Dept research scientist Dr B Jones indicated something in the vicinity of 20,000 tonnes anually!'
can be easily manipulated to suit many things (in line with the 'excellent unbiased scientifically backed no.1 WA show' today tonight, etc).

i will agree that seriola hippos do not stop feeding during the spawning season (dropped a few baits and have mucked around out a fair bit out there to deduce that ;)). You might say the obvious point would be that they hit jigs, but that may be territorial or purely instinctive. Since they hit baits too, I think it might be possible to deduce that they are happily feeding. In other words, they're not like atlantic salmon.

But thats about all I will say, given that I don't have the facts at my fingertips. Most of what I know is derived from conversation. About the weigh loss and their parasite.... tempting, but I'm going to keep my mouth shut this time, in case you ask me to find backup evidence. That'll be just mroe work for me. ;) And I'm sure my view will be expressed by someone else. Just to clarify, my only involvement in the research going on thus far has been from the point as a fisherman. I think an email would be a better option Adam, to get it down in writing.

p.s. i really really do not advise you to actually read a thesis. even about sambos.

p.p.s. i don't think the thesis is done yet, which is why the research is still ongoing ;) ;)

p.p.p.s. i might have to eat humble pie once all the facts are laid bare, so lets not forget, this is mainly about fishing :) :)

Kasey L.'s picture

Posts: 1390

Date Joined: 02/03/06

sorry, couldnt help

Wed, 2006-03-08 11:49

sorry, couldnt help myself

'Will it replace the collective experience of a few generations of Lobster fishers who've been feeding sambos since they were kids!'

in response to that rhetorical,
and once upon a time all the worlds greatest heads thought the world was flat. discuss.

p.s. i really couldn't help myself... it may be 20,000 tonnes annually, but i would like to express my viewpoint that its not all happily gobbled up by the single seriola species.

Posts: 485

Date Joined: 04/02/06

Ahh grasshopper.

Wed, 2006-03-08 13:16

You do very well- you think independently and that is indeed good!
Last thing I want to see is a clone of me - we NEED badly independent thinking sceientists - who arent afraid to challenge or query a statement.

Put 2 + 2 together!

I agree that the seriola clan don't eat all the lobster bait discarded, that much is obvious (your first view of sealice in action will aware you of that!).

However - i was kinda hoping that - I would have peeked your interested.

Parasite worm infestations rampant within the seriola clan?

Is this a localised thing (i.e is it consistent elsewhere in the world in say the amberjack populations?) AND more importantly...(heres the linkage I was hoping you'd grasp!)...is there a causal link between the 20,000 tonnes per annum of imported morth sea herring and this parasite problem?

Could the imported north sea herirng be the source of the worm in seriola?

You starting to see yet - why, I suggest to you (IMHO) that the quantities are significant - but not just the quantity but the source and it's pathogen status!

There is a LOT we need to know about Seriola - and the tagging studies will tell us much - but there will still be much we may NOT know after the results are in - is my best guess.

All the same - it is NOT safe to deduce for example that seriola lose weight due to spawning alone - just because we know they gather for a spawning aggregation.

We as humans have far more effect than we might like to admit on our marine environments....and a big $ industry like the Lobster industry - has the capacity to have effects we havent even begun to consider due to the sheer volumes / intensity of cath effort.

Hope thats some food for thought!

Don't get too hung up on Flat Earths and scientific discipline.

Even scientists get it wrong occasionally.

Do you believe that Einstein was right and the speed of light is C (186,000 mps) or 3 x 10^8 meters / second?

Can you prove it scientifically?

I mean the guy won a nobel prize didn't he?

His work was peer reviewed!

E = MC^2 is a given - isn't it?

Want me to prove him wrong?

Will you still have your faith in the validity of the scientific method when I do?

Just twixt you n me - I've seen science for sale to the highest bidder too often to have blind faith in it. Yes it can be good but it can also lead us equally astray!


Posts: 39

Date Joined: 11/02/06


Wed, 2006-03-08 16:06

One thing with regard to the parasitic worms , are they not endemic to the species ??? and if so why would an infected fish lose weight only during the spawning season .
If your theory is correct then once an infected fish has spawned and travelled home to say Esperance by the time next years spawning run comes around he is going to be a skinny emaciated runt unable to make the journey rather than the beergutted horses that were the cause of this thread initially.And if you follow your theory to its logical conclusion, fish once infected on arrival here will never make another spawning run and the species is basically history!!
Also be interested to know when north sea herring started to be imported for bait as it is my understanding from anecdotal information that big sambos have always been susceptible to this problem as you allude to yourself--
``Most of the old time cray boys won't eat big sambo due to the worm burden in the flesh, however - in days gone bye they did used to put the odd one in a cray pot for bait!`
So if you are referring to true old time cray boys we are talking about well before north sea herring commenced being utilised for bait and I would imagine that of the 20k tonne of bait used not all is in fact north sea herring or in fact imported.
Can you point us towards any online info here Flywest.

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 22/11/05

Trouty, The reason for the

Wed, 2006-03-08 16:15

Trouty, The reason for the Sambo's being at the back of Rotto is spawning and that is it.

Why, not because cray boys discarded bait,More like currents would be the likely one, and maybe the structure from the old dumping ground.

Your theory has no justification what so ever.I reckon these Sambo's have been doing this for hundreds of years in the same place just like the Pink snapper in Cockburn sound.

Care too give your thoughts on this species why they spawn in cockburn sound and why they haven't recaptured jack from this tagging exercise. what was it, it ain't rocket science.

While ya at it can ya give ya opinion on why we can simple release a undersize Pinkie in 100m of water and recapture it 5 times and guys in SA or Queensland cant even contemplate this with out using a release weight

should start a new topic me thinks


Posts: 39

Date Joined: 11/02/06


Wed, 2006-03-08 16:22

I am completely with you Wally , i was just trying to get Flywest to give some facts to support his theory

Posts: 39

Date Joined: 11/02/06

Cray bait

Wed, 2006-03-08 17:26

Following stats of cray bait is self explanatory ,looks like imported mackerel was the most popular in those seasons.
3.9 Bait
Fishermen were able to choose from a wide range of both local and imported fish baits.
During the 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 seasons the following baits were the most commonly
used. Their popularity is indicated by a scale of 1-10, with 1 being the most popular.

Fisheries Research Report [Western Australia] No. 149, 2005 17
Common names 2001/2002 2002/2003
North South North South
30° S 30° S 30° S 30° S
Imported mackerel (Scomber spp.) 1 1 1 1
Australian salmon (Arripis truttaceus)
and New Zealand Kahawai (Arripis trutta) 3 3 2 3
North Sea herring (Clupea harengus) 2 4 3 5
Orange roughy heads (Hoplostethus atlanticus) 4 2 4 2
Australian herring (Arripis georgianus) 6 - 5 -
Tuna heads (Thunnus spp.) 9 9 6 8
Hoki heads (Macruronus novaezelandiae) 7 5 7 7
Kangaroo (Macropus spp.) 5 - 8 -
Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) 8 - 9 -
Scaly mackerel (Sardinella lemura) 10 7 10 6
Pilchards (Sardinops neopilchardus) - 6 - 4
Mullet (Mugil cephalus) - 8 - 9
Listed below are the retail prices paid by fishermen both north and south of 30° S for a
variety of rock lobster baits. Prices quoted here are from selected processing establishments
and do vary between suppliers:
2001/2002 Retail price ($) 2002/2003 Retail price ($)
Type of Bait North South North South
30° S 30° S 30° S 30° S
Australian salmon per kg 0.85-1.15 1.30 1.20 1.30
New Zealand salmon per kg 1.15 1.40 1.30 1.40
Australian herring per kg 1.20 1.20 1.35 -
Yelloweye mullet per kg - - 1.20 -
Scaly mackerel per kg 1.00 1.05 - 1.20
Imported mackerel per kg 1.05-1.35 0.90-1.35 1.05-1.40 1.15-1.45
Tuna heads per kg 1.05 1.10 1.00 1.00
Kangaroo per kg 1.05 0.95 1.00 1.00
Pilchards per kg - 1.10 - 1.20
North Sea herring per kg 1.35 1.25 1.25 1.25
Orange roughy per kg 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.10
Hoki per kg 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.70
Sardinella per kg 1.10 - -

Posts: 485

Date Joined: 04/02/06

Doncha hate that?

Thu, 2006-03-09 15:41

Damn it all!
I sat here for best part of an hour or more yesterday typing a considered response to everyones questions and statements..
I even linked in a photo to demonstrate a point - & I went and found the Disease risks paper I dod for AQIS and put in the details from that - then the missus is callin me for dinner n gettting cranky, my dinners got cold and the kids have eaten just about everything on the table... - so I'm just finnished spell checking - and hit the enter key, and walk away to eat my now cold diinner (on my own)!..while Mrs Flywest is no longer speakin to me- but ti don't matter coz I got my answer done!

So, I come back after the meal, to find my post gone and the puter saying can't find website or something coz unbeknowns to me -(on dialup) someones phoned in only microseonds before I hit the enter key, thus disconnecting me from the net!

So I've lost everything i wote and bugga me it was almost a excerpt from war n peace!

Damn I hate computers and telephones and stuff that can ruin my day!

So now I can't even remember what I posted to write it again!

Must be getting old - too many brews from aluminium cans, can't remember my own name sometimes!


Adam Gallash's picture

Posts: 15293

Date Joined: 29/11/05


Thu, 2006-03-09 15:53

Bit of bad luck there mate, was looking foward to seeing what you were going to come up with. :)


Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance

Posts: 485

Date Joined: 04/02/06

I'll gather my thoughts again Adam

Thu, 2006-03-09 16:38

This time I'll get smart and put my reply on word doc - then copy n paste it in!

Heck I was even gonna disprove 'Einsteins special theory of relativity' from memory (Yeah - never loan munney to relatives!) ;o)

Ahhh - big sigh...take more happy pills...I can do this.. I will not bite the porcupine - I will not bite the porcupine! hehehe


Posts: 485

Date Joined: 04/02/06

Ok Einstein was wrong!

Fri, 2006-03-10 23:36

Einstein's Relativity Error

The physical sciences in 1873 seemed to once again take on an air of stability as James Clerk Maxwell published his, 'Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.'

In this paper, he discussed electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetism as functions of waves in a fluid space (ether). His theory held popular support until the year 1887 when the two U.S. physicists AA Mitchelson and Edward W Morley performed their historic experiment with light. Their experiment (The Mitchelson-Morley experiment) was designed to use light as a means to determine if space were a 'fluid' as Maxwell's equations had assumed.

The M-M test results, however, appeared to deny the existence of fluid (or ether) space. To explain the 'apparent' failure of the M-M test to detect the ether, Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald developed their now famous 'transforms' (The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transforms - 1902) in which length contractions, mass increase and time lag were offered as explanation for the negative test result. Note that the Lorentz - Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid, one undetectable by known technology.

Einstein, who first began the formulation of his special theory of relativity in 1895, published it in 1905. He seized upon the Lorentz -Fitzgerald transforms and the M-M test results as evidence of a universal axiom: The velocity of light is (to the observer) the limit measurable velocity in the universe, (this does not mean it is the limit velocity in the universe however).

The discipline details

Einstein was faced with an apparent paradox, as to the nature of space. It behaved like a fluid in many ways - yet in others it behaved like an abstract, ten-component Ricci Tensor from the Reimannian model of the Universe. The failure of the M-M test to detect an ether was the final straw. Yet, hard as he tried, Einstein failed to remove the ether from E=MC^2.

The following discussion should illustrate this point.
Diagram One above is a schematic of the M-M test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space.

It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another.

This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c)
And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b):


c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extra-terrestrial observer
S = distance GA = GB
T1 = go-return time in-line (GA - AG)
T2 = go return time at right angles (GB-BG)
T = .5 t T2
V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer.

Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(c-ve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to:

(Eq.1) 2sc/(c2 - ve2) = t1

Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2

By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12


(Eq.2) v1= (c2 - ve2).5

Now, solving for the time (t) - which is the same over GM, GB, MB - of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains:

(Eq.3) s/t = (c2 - ve2).5


(Eq.3) t = s/(c2 - ve2).5

Substituting: t = .5t2

Gives: t2/2=s/(c2 - ve2).5


(Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2 - ve2).5

by comparing the ratio of the in-line go-return time (t1) to the right angle go-return time (t2) one obtains:

(Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2 - ve2).5 / 2s

which reduces to:

(Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees:

(Eq 6.) ve = 0


(Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 -0).5 = 1/1 = 1

Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each suvvessive try of the linear M - M taest has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord….
Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether.

Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows:

Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
(to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1).

Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass see's it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it,…

Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer
Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider
Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it
Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it
Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that:

(Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2

So - to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension

(Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1


(Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2

then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
which reduces to:
(Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type:

(Eq. 12) (1- b) -a

Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series:

(Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc

where b2 is less than 1

So - setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2

One obtains:

(Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc…

For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14):

(Eq. 15) (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5= 1+ve2 /2c2

so (Eq. 11) becomes:

(Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c

developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2

(Eq. 17) m2 - m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2

remembering energy (E) is represented by:

(Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c)

One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving…

(Eq. 19) m2 - m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v)

Representing the change in mass (m2 - m1) by M gives:

(Eq. 20) M = E/ c2

Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M):

(Eq. 21) E = m c2

(Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c)

Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)…( ve ) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity… This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for special relativity. His failing was in declaring the velocity of light an observable limit to the velocity of any mass when it should only have been the limit to any observable electromagnetic wave velocity in the ether . The velocity of light is only a limit velocity in the fluid of space where it is being observed. If the energy density of space is greater or less in another part of space, then the relativistic velocity of light will pass up and down through the reference light wave velocity limit - if such exists.

Do not fall into the trap of assuming that this fluid space cannot have varying energy-density Perhaps the reader is this very moment saying, an incompressible fluid space does not allow concentrations of energy - but he is wrong - dead wrong!

When a fixed density fluid is set in harmonic motion about a point or centre, the number of masses passing a fixed reference point per unit time can be observed as increased mass (or concentrated energy). Although the density (mass per volume) is constant, the mass velocity product yeilds the illusion of more mass per volume per time. Space is an incompressible fluid of varying energy density…in this authors opinion!

The apparent absurdity of infinitely- increasing - mass and infinitely decreasing length as a mass approaches the light wave velocity is rationalized by realizing that space has inertia and as such offers inertial resistance to the moving mass. The energy of the moving mass is transmitted in front of it into the medium of space. The resulting curl of inertial resistance increases as negative momentum to the extent the mass is converted to radiant energy as it meets it’s own reflected mass in resistance. However - to the Star Trek fans, take heart… just as man broke the sound velocity limit (sound barrier) he can also break the light velocity limit (light barrier). By projecting a high-density polarized field of resonating electrons to spoil or warp the pressure wave of the inertial curl, the hyper-light craft can slip through the warp opening before it closes, - emitting the characteristics of a shock wave. Such a spoiler would be formed by using the electro-dynamic, high-energy-density electron waves which would normally proceed before the hyper-light craft, as a primary function of propulsion. When a similar function is executed by hypersonic aircraft, a sonic boom is formed as the as the inertial curl collapses on itself. In space, the light velocity equivalent to this sonic boom would be in the form of Cherenkov radiation which is emitted as a mass crosses the light-velocity threshold sending tangential light to the direction of travel.

Ether Existence Verified.

In 1913, the rotational version of the linear M - M experiment was successfully performed by G Sagnac (see p 65 - 67 of The PhysicalFoundations of General Relativity by D.W. Sciama, Heineman Educational Books Ltd., 48 Charles St., London WIX8AH) In 1925 Mitchellson and Gale used the spinning earth as their rotational analogue to the linear M - M experiment. It also showed successfully that the velocity of light sent in the direction of spin around the perimeter of a spinning disc (or of the surface of the earth) varied from the velocity of the light sent against the spin. (Refer diagram 3 Below).


Analogy Of Dilemma

The error of the M-M experiment is the test results are also valid for the case where there is an ether and it, too, is moving along with the same relative velocity and orbit as Earth maintains around the Sun.

The Tea Cup Analogy can be used to explain the error.

If one stirs a cup of tea which has some small tea leaves floating on it's surface, (obviously before the invention of the ubiquitous tea bag!) one notices some of these tea leaves orbiting the vortex in the centre of the cup. The leaves closer to the centre travel faster than those father from the centre (both in linear and angular velocity).

Now, one must imagine oneself greatly reduced in size and sitting upon one of these orbiting leaves. If one were to put his hands over the edge of his tea leaf on any side, would he feel any tea moving past?…No! The reason is that the motion of the tea is the force that has caused the velocity of the leaf. One could not detect any motion, if both himself and the tea were travelling in the same direction and the same velocity. However, If one had arms long enough to stick a hand in the tea closer to either the centre or the rim of the cup - where the velocities were different to his own then he would feel tea moving faster or slower than himself (respectively).

Also, if one were to spin his tea leaf at the same time as it orbits about the centre, placing his hands into the tea immediately surrounding his leaf would show inertial resistance against the spin moment of his leaf.

Solar Tea Cup

In the preceding analogy, the centre of the spinning tea (or vortex centre) represented the sun, the leaf: the earth; The tea: The ether; and the riders hands: the light beams of the M - M test. In essence, what Mitchellson, Morley, Einstein and many other scientists have said is that the M - M test showed the volocity of light was not affected by the earth's orbital motion.
"Therefore" they have said, "we have one of two conclusions to draw";

1) The Earth is orbiting the sun and there is no ether, or,
2) The Earth is not orbiting the sun and there is an ether but since the earth is not moving through the ether, the ether "wind" cannot be detected. Obviously, this conclusion is negated by the Earth's observed helio centric orbit.

However, their reasoning should also have incorporated a THIRD option.

3) The Earth is orbiting the sun…and so is the ether; therefore, no ether wind could be detected in the orbital vector immediately in the vicinity of Earth.

In other words, the test results cannot prove or disprove the existence of an ether…only whether or not the earth is moving relative to the ether!

C Not Constant
Remember, in 1913, G Sagnac performed his version of the M-M experiment and corrected the inconclusive results which Mitchellson and Morley's test had obtained. In Sagnac's rotational analogue of the M-M test the velocity of light was shown to vary. Aalso in 1925, Mitchellson and Gale verified Sagnac's results with their own rotational analogue. Even more recently, similar verification has been made using a ring-laser system to detect the rotational velocity of the Earth, relative to the ether,

Relativists Discard Evidence

By the time the ether wind was proven to exist, Einstein's theories were already winning strong support on the merits of celestial observations which closely agreed with Einstein's predicted values. As a result the scientific community decided to explain the ether wind phenomenon as a result of Earth's spinning in it's own ether blanket which Earth was apparently dragging through space. No explanation was ever agreed upon as to the origin or extent of this ether blanket. It was simply a way to sweep a discrepancy under the carpet.

Einstein Admits Error.

In a biography written just before his death, Professor Einstein, is quoted as admitting he had a fundamental error in Relativity. It was he said, one which-when corrected-will explain how light - an obvious wave form - can be propagated across an apparently non-inertial space. Einstein also stated that the discovery of the solution to this error would probably be the result of some serendipitous discovery in the 1960's.

However, before he died, Einstein did manage to partially correct his error, With the help of the well known Dr Erwin Schrodinger, Dr Einstein, was able to construct a 'total theory' for existence. It was called the "Unified Field Theory". Although Dr Einstein was able to lay the basic framework before his death, it is reasonably certain that a more readily useable version of the "Unified Field Theory" was only completed by other physicists after Einstein had died.

One of the more promising contributions toward a useable unified field theory was offered by Dr Stanley Deser and Dr. Richard Arnowitt. They took the General Theory of Relativity which Einstein had devised and constructed a "bridge" or "creation tensor" to link the energy of nuclear fields with that of gravitational fields by co-variant matrices. The basic relationship of General Relativity which they used as a basis for their system is:

Ruv- .5guvR = 8(pi)kTuv

Ruv = Ricci's ten-component sub-Riemannian space, curvature tensor
guv = the metric tensor
R = the selected Ricci scalar components
K = a universal constant: proportional to Newton's gravitational constant
Pi = the usual constant 3.14etc
Tuv = the components (potentials) of the energy stress tensor

Although Deser and Arnowitt's proposed equations were quite difficult to work with, it is rumored that subsequent linear variations have been developed - allowing major leaps in science and technology to develop.
When the correctly formulated Unified Field Theory is finally released to the public it wil be recognised quite easily; for it will have explained why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron…why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,…why (h) is a constant…and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137).

The true "Unified Field Theory" - will no longer be called a "Theory" - it will become the Unified Field Law".

What I've been trying (very hard) to get you all to realize - of course - is that….

Just as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity E = Mc2
And T. Beardens Special Theory of Time E = Δ Tc2
are crucial to realizing a Unified Field Theory or (LAW), my own discovery, - Flywest's Special Theory of Time & Mass M = Δ T….
Is likewise - a part of the key of understanding our universe and the energy forms in it!

Now that we've had a classical physics proof, lets look at a mathematical proof Einstein was wrong shall we?!


Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light,

Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment

In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the velocity of light and confirm the basic laws of nature.

They sent light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it went around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, which is a small but measurable percentage of the velocity of light. Their experiment was to show that a beam of light sent in the direction of the earth's travel should be the speed of light PLUS the speed of the earth. While a beam sent backwards should be the speed of light MINUS the speed of the earth.

No matter how many times they and many other scientists repeated that same experiment, it always failed.

The measured speed of light was always the same in any direction.

For 20 years modern science was in a quandary. Were Newton's easily provable laws of physics wrong? In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a solution -- but he was wrong. Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathema- tician/scientist James Maxwell wrote his famous four equations. His equations have become a gold-standard in science and are still accepted without changes or doubt. While integrating his differential equations, Maxwell had to add the mathematically required integration constant. In math, the integration constant is usually called "C." Maxwell's equations relate the static electric attractive force of an electron to the same magnetic attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle or a coil of wire. To make the equations match the experimental measurements, the integration constant C had to have the units of 186,000 miles per second. Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light." Today, science still calls the velocity of light C.
But not so. It was only an integration constant to make Maxwell's equations match the measurements. What the 19th century scientists, including Einstein, did not know nor have any experience with, was some- thing which we now know as "time zones." Time zones relate time to distance. Even today most of Europe is in the same time zone. None of the 19th century European scientist had ever experienced the need to change their watches as they traveled from country to country. Today as we travel around the earth in fast jet planes we need to adjust our clocks and watches to the new time zone at the rate of 1 hour for each 1,000 miles of travel. This "virtual velocity" is not real, but simply the commonly accepted rate in "miles per hour" for calculating by how much we need to adjust our wrist watch as we travel. This "virtual velocity" could be called the "C" of time zones. This "virtual velocity" or time conversion constant could be any arbitrary number, as long as we all accept the same number.
What is the "C" of time zones on Mars or the moon? It's not the same as on earth. A proper analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that there are actually four possible explanations for the null or failed result. Most scientists, including Einstein, who had no experience with time zones, only saw three possibilities. Many scientists in 1905 could not and some still do not fully accept Einstein's choice among the three possibilities - since his theory clearly violates our sense of reality, and Newton's laws of physics. Einstein's Relativity Theory also produces a series of well-known paradoxes. In mathematics and logic, whenever a syllogism, system of logic or theory produces a paradoxical result, it is almost always the result of an incorrect premise. That fourth possibility for explaining the mysterious result of the M-M experiment falls directly from the result of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment itself. That new fourth possibility is that the "virtual velocity" of light is infinity, while the "actual velocity" seeming to come from Maxwell's equations is 186,000 miles per second. This is the same as when we travel in jet planes. We can measure our "actual velocity" or local velocity on the jet plane as 350 miles per hour.

But we must add or subtract the "virtual velocity" of one hour for each 1,000 miles of travel, or the change in time zones, to make the answer match reality when we arrive at the destination. That's not hard or difficult to do. And we often do the calculation in our head. Add three hours to your watch as you travel the 3,000 miles from Los Angeles to New York. This possibility of the "virtual velocity" of light solves the dilemma of the repeatedly failed Michelson-Morley experiment. If the "virtual velocity" of light is infinite, the "actual velocity" or apparent velocity 186,000 m/s will always appear to be the same regardless of the motion of the light source. Infinity PLUS the velocity of the earth is always the same as Infinity MINUS the velocity of the earth. Infinity plus or minus any number is always infinity.
Thus the Michelson-Morley experiment was not a failure.

It proves that Dr. Einstein was wrong.

For years, I confounded my teachers by working out complex problems in relativistic mechanics in my head. They said I was mostly exactly correct but at extremely high velocities near 99.99999 percent of the velocity of light, my answers were just a tad bit too big, compared to Einstein's equations.

I said, that's because Einstein was wrong.

I should also add that recent experiments and measurements over long time periods or distances, such as the two Pioneer spacecraft which recently left beyond the edges of our solar system, seem to show that Einstein's equations give answers which are just a tad bit too small.


Was Special Relativity a Hoax Accidentally Perpetrated on Science?

One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.
It has become the basis for much of modern physics.
I read his paper and found that it contained a simple arithmetic error, therefore the theory must be false. Years later as a physics student I told my teachers about my discovery of the math error. They didn't believe me, even when I showed them a much simpler way to solve advanced physics problems. My solution was so simple that I could solve most of the problems in my head. Today we need to ask ourselves "Why is it that modern science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple math error?" The answer is simple. It was a mistake in the normal "peer review" process used by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.
That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness. But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error. Why did no one catch the obvious error?
It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review. Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien,
later won Nobel Prizes themselves. They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed. It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year. Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt Einstein had no "peers." For whatever reason, the journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed" physics journal. It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists. But not so. Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the obvious math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the scientists thought, would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers, the greatest minds of physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling dolts. Not a good thing to do if you want a future career in physics. Because of the surreptitious and momentary Annalen der Physik change in editorial policy, no respectable scientist would dare to proclaim, "Look, the King has no clothes." It seemed to everyone that the whole scientific community was all ooohing and aaahing over the "King's invisible royal raiment" and how well it all seemed to match his new Nobel Prize. In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the physics community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what was in front of them. It would take the innocence of a child to state the obvious. I was 14 at the time when I found the obvious math mistake in Einstein's paper. I was then too young and naive to know that winning a Nobel Prize would automatically and magically correct math errors in physics papers.

In the university environment, not being a professed "believer" in Relativity Theory, is considered the near equivalent to being a heretic, blasphemer, or bomb-throwing anarchist. By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already been widely "accepted" for so long and republished in so many advanced college textbooks, that most professors simply could not see the obvious math error which I had found. They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist. Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were,
such as Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already proclaimed the theory to be true, therefore the simple math error can't exist. For them, the error was invisible, even when it was pointed out to them. And what was that Simple Math Error? It's so simple even a child could figure it out. It was a matter of re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein had interpreted the negative results as meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which nothing can exceed. That "fact" actually has never been proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by Einstein. He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec. I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work, Einstein had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform. This is both mathematically and logically incorrect.
The Lorentz Transform
The Transform seems to give the numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but mathematically it is false. The Lorentz Transform uses the square root of the velocity squared divided by C squared. Mathematically all square roots have two answers, the positive and the negative root. Einstein, in his paper, seemingly without telling anybody, had arbitrarily tossed out the negative root as not having any physical meaning. But that is a mathematical and scientific "no-no" and means that the original premise of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory must be incorrect. Under the Lorentz Transform an object will travel at V = 1,000 mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time. That clearly is paradoxical. This is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of four is equal to two. For most people, those numbers seem absolutely correct. But actually that is false, since the square root of four is equal to both plus two AND minus two. For the mathematically challenged, that is equivalent to Einstein claiming that two plus two is equal to five (2 + 2 = 5). And that same mind-boggling math error is published in every modern advanced physics textbook on Relativity Theory. But since, supposedly it was published in a respected "peer reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue with it? The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.

For example:

(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.


(3)All dogs are cats, AND/OR
(4) All cats are dogs!

Which premise is false?

With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.

The twin paradox will likely find it's explanation in "Minkowskies twin worldines" or more correctly:-

Minkowski Space-Time
The Twin Paradox: The Spacetime Diagram Explanation

Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, even though it produced a paradoxical result - indicating a false logical premise. The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong. Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz,
Dr. Hendrik Lorentz
who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory. Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment. He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer. But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer. Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I just mentioned. He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college classnotes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity." Dr. Lorentz never accepted nor called it the "Theory of Relativity." For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it produced the obvious paradox. Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper. That Relativity paper would never have made it through a real and proper "peer review" process. There actually is another simpler way to explain and solve the mysterious negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
It uses the simple physical constant called "alpha," the Fine Structure Constant. It was the genius Einstein himself, who introduced the Fine Structure Constant in his first Nobel Prize winning paper about the Quantum nature of the photoelectric effect. If Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the basis for solving the M-M Experiment, instead of the Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper, he would have found that all the forces of nature; the nuclear, electric, magnetic, and gravitational forces, were all simply variations of the same force. Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity. The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137. It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole. This changes all observed measurements of time and distance. The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha." The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c." The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h." The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition. Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumverate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete. It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space. All the tools needed to solve the mystery of the M-M Experiment problem are found in the definition of "alpha." No paradoxical square root of squares Lorentz Transform is needed. But 100 years ago, before the common use and experience of "time zones" to measure the passage of time in different locations around the world, nobody could see it. All the natural forces of the universe, using Einstein's "alpha" could be described with a single equation. It was the "Unified Field Theory" which Einstein and many other esteemed theoretical physicists had long sought, but somehow had eluded them. Instead, for 100 years, a simple editorial mistake in a "peer reviewed" physics journal has led science astray.

So - we should believe now, (after realising that I've just proven the nobel prize winning physicist Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity wrong!) we should trust in a few Phd's from university who tag a few fish - that we will know everything there is to know about the members of the seriola clan?

Frankly people - It's my humble opinion they are still operating in the dark...

But what would I know - a degree from the school of hard knocks don't make me even half as smart as them!

I have little shorty of contempt for today's hallowed halls of academia! They serve a purpose I guess in keeping kids off the street denying them any real world life experience and teaching them NOT to think for themselves!

Heavens forbit they should one day wake up and actually have an "original thought" or question existing dogma!

Most of them still struggle with Shrodingers cat!

Don't know Shrodingers Cat?

Thats what Google was invented for fella's!

Now - there will be a 100 question test on this in a weeks time - and NO - it will NOT be multiple choice! ;o)

So study hard - next week - I will lead you thru Mass and Time and my FAT GUT theorem.. (Not my beer gut you doults!...GUT Grand Unification Theorem!)

Jeeze - I sometimes wonder of you guys are payin attention when I speak???

M = Δ T

Anyone can explain it to me before next weeks test get an automatic 100% pass...and doesn't have to sit the test on Einstein's STR (Special Theory of Relativity! ;o)

OH yeah - you have to state who discovered it!

Clue - start with moir! ;o)


Kasey L.'s picture

Posts: 1390

Date Joined: 02/03/06

advanced quantum mechanics?

Sat, 2006-03-11 03:52

advanced quantum mechanics? on a thread about me reminiscing about how much fun ive had with sambos....?
a little off track to prove your point...

i'm reading it bit by bit... but i wont pretend to understand, particularly as its nowhere near what i am even close to being familiar with...

is there perhaps a publication or paper with a name for this so that i can cross referrence it for verification? just out of curiosity...

Quote; we should trust in a few Phd's from university who tag a few fish - that we will know everything there is to know about the members of the seriola clan?

rhetorical or not, after all that, i would have expected you to share the perception that not only can science not 'support' [because nothing can actually be PROVEN] eveything and provide all the answers, but you'll never know everything about something.
it can merely try to help us understand [althoug that understanding bit is sometimes hard enough].

ok i feel i have said too much about things irrelevant with the topic. i would like to add though, if you want to actually explain complex theories that YOU seem to have come up with, i assume you will have the more easy to understand laymans abstract. who are you trying to kid, you think this sort of thing is going to be discussed by physisists elite?

Shrodingers Cat is an interesting, and amusing mental exercise though. but i dont quite follow how it can be explained. it just is.

you can pm me your version if you wish...?

Adam Gallash's picture

Posts: 15293

Date Joined: 29/11/05


Sat, 2006-03-11 10:48

Where are you getting these pills mate?? I want some! I reckon I'll cream next semesters uni exams with a couple.


Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance

Posts: 485

Date Joined: 04/02/06


Sat, 2006-03-11 11:13

advanced quantum mechanics

Nahh - that WAS the simple laymans explanation - simple basic level physics, ya see quantum mechanics is an ettempt to combine string theory with simple physics to get a unified field explanation for the universe - but all methods fail... for one simple reason.

The reason is Einsteins false premise about te speed of light being a constant.

It may well behave as a constant in near earth space due to the ether blanket around the earth having the same rotional & orbital velocity as the earth (solar tea up laymans explanation)... but c;learly the speed of light is NOT 3 x 10^8 meters per second (or 186000 miles per second if your old enough for imperial measurements!).

The spee dof light is in fact infinity.

Infinity is constant!

So - thats why E=Mc^2 seeminly answers so many physics questions to very very close approximations..excetp at the wide extents of space and sub atomic particles.

However the speed of light atributed to C at 3 x 10^8Mps - is merely a figure that happens to make some sense because of the lorentz fitgerald transforms...and maxwells famous 4 equations.

All we need do - is rework Einsteins equations for relativity - and stop at the point he introooduces the lorentz transform and instead insert his alpha fine structure constant (1/137) and we will get a much simpler way to understand all the forces of the universe.

The 'point' KC in all this - is that I tred to get you to accept that it's not a good idea to have too strong a faith in University level "research" pertaining to the seriola clan - the scientific method sometimes leaves a little to be desired as I hope I've just shown. (Non peer eviewed paper leads science astray for 100 years...and we should trust academia?

KC, we should rightly question EVERYTHING and thats the point of the excercise.

I do just that (Question the Seriola tagging project results & method even - I suggest factors that might be significant - which it takes no account of (such as parasite burdens and significant volumes of bait from lobster industry).

The point is - these things are statistically significant and any SERIOUS study would take them into account.

I believe that allows me (as a Fisheries consultant) to call into question the studie's veracity at a fundamental level.

It may well tell us a lot - just look how E=Mc^2 has served humanity faithfully for over 100 years with nuclear energy and space travel being but 2 examples....yet - the fact light behaves as a constant in near earth space and lightspeed at 3 x10^8 Mps serves our purposes well enough - it isn't actualy true - and any benefot we have derived was more by accident than good management!

So I suspect it may well be with the seriola tagging project!

As said at the beginning, marine sciences are not yet an exact science.

Heck - only a few years back we didn't class the pink snapper (Pagrus auratus) as the same species found off Japan... now we do!

Things change fast in the marine sciences...

That is / was my point - nothing more nothing less...

But, a questioning and thinking student requires a full and detiled answer - no?

This is as it should be and augurs well for the future of our resource management IMHO.

The greatest legacy is to cause others to think for themselves and question established dogma!

You think independently - you question established dogma? Good! - then my work here is done! ;o)


Posts: 485

Date Joined: 04/02/06

Pills Adam?

Sat, 2006-03-11 11:34

No sweat! ;o)

The 'seed' of genius resides within us all!

Some choose to allow that seed to grow with the metaphoric water of 'time' - while others choose to prune the germinated seed back from time to time - to get it to stay within comfortable borders such that it doesn't climb the neighbors fence and invade their space!

Yet others poison it at birth or afterward. Then you have the neighbours who can't handle the plant that their neighbors seed of genius becomes, and spend innordinant amounts of time "pruning it back" to manageable levels!

Others like moir tend to let it run free!

Such is the result you see above - after a simple estoteric ramble thru the 'tangled shrubbery' of one man's, muddled mind! ;o)

It's not the journey scares me - tis the destination once reached!


P.s. Stay tuned next week - for my treatise on Zen Bhuddism & the Estoteric art of Motorcycle maintenance while standing on your head directing traffic in Hay street mall of a Saturday morning!!!

You may otherwise attend my alternative "Karris, Jarrahs, Gilgies & Jumping trout" lecture!


Posts: 485

Date Joined: 04/02/06

Lastly but not least

Sat, 2006-03-11 11:41

We will come back to the bait tables posted back a page in this thread!

I will post up that table from 1999 in the AQIS report I referred previously to (in the post that vapourised into the internet ether!)

Ater doing so - I will demnstrate clearly for all to see - a shamefull exapmle of "science for sale to the highest bidder" - by one of our own Fisheries Dept employed scientists. (who for legal reasons for Adams and my sake probably should remain nameless!

We will see...that science alone is NOT to be trusted, but is instead influenced by fiscal and political considerations of it's paymasters!

Yet another example, of why I remain an unconvinced cynic of the Seriola clan tagging studies!

Pure science is a wonderful thing to behold!.

However someonemust PAY for good science and once we have the political & fiscal imperative involved, science seldom remains pure!

Are we all up for the trip - and it's possible ramificatios?

I sure hope so!