Special Relativity and the mathigician-party trick of Einstein's 'time dilation'.
Relativity employed tautological and contrived maths to position itself as 'science'. Einstein's maths are well known to be suffused with circular dependencies and are wrong.
“The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion.
To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected.
The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.”
Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, p. 44
The quote above dear friends, is the heart of the matter.
It is never taught why the philosophical-mathematical chimera of ‘Relativity’ was erected as dogmatic gospel truth, more divine than any creed emanating from the Catholic Church. The idempotent galvanising factor is the reality that we on this globe have not, and cannot, mechanically measure, using light interference experiments, a movement of this planet through the heavens. Relativity was conjured by the mathigicians to explain this anomaly.
As a ‘science’ Relativity has no merit, as about 1000 pages on this substack attest and establish. It was, and still is, a maths game of illusion.
One of the most risible and inane scientistic marketing claims is that Einstein was a ‘genius’ and the ‘greatest scientist ever’. Neither is true. He was not a practical scientist, and did not build a single experiment to prove this anti-scientific ‘thought experiments’.
‘The’ Einstein created elaborate tensor-calculus models which mean nothing. The author uses the same in his quotidian existence. The author can take any tensor model, distort it, beat it, torture it and force it to produce anything he wants. It does not mean it is ‘science’.
Let us go further and clarify.
Let there be light
Since 1543 no mechanical proof to support Copernicanism was offered. By the mid-19th century this was becoming a rather obvious embarrassment. Bessel the Beloved’s ‘proof’ for Copernicanism in 1838 using ‘stellar-parallax’ was anything but, and just another example of obvious maths fraud (as was Bradley’s 1725 claim). The Copernicans knew this. Instead, dozens of water and light experiments had disproven Copernican theory failing to find the mobility of this planet.
In order to prove Copernican claims, Relativists, including Einstein who was one of many theorists, developed elaborate fantasies, based on arcane maths and thought experiments, to describe a universe in which c would be the invariant speed of light, and all objects would be measured to each other against this c invariance on a ‘relative’ basis.
This implies that the velocity of the ‘observer’ on a moving platform like Earth (a tautological assumption!), nullifies the calculation of Earthly speed, given that all universal objects are also in motion, at the invariance of c, each within its own reference frame or grid, each unable to verify its own movement.
In order for every object to live in its own universe, space and time are merged and relativised.
There are no absolutes against which to measure movement or velocity.
This means the removal of the aether and plasma, and the creation of a ‘vacuum’.
Such is the fantasy world of make-believe physics.
Scalable Scalars
Let us define 2 important terms:
A scalar: A physical quantity with a size or magnitude. The man weighs 100 kgs.
A vector: A physical quantity with both size (magnitude) and direction. The 100 kg man is running (very slowly) east up the hill.
‘The’ Einstein produced 2 equations based on light invariant speed and merged space and time:
Equation 1 𝑥2 + 𝑦2 + 𝑧2 = 𝑐2𝑡2 = 𝑇2
Each of these variables was treated as a scalar value by Einstein, but it is more reasonable to think of x, y, z (3 dimensions) and t (Time) as vector quantities.
Equation 2 x + y + x = ct = T
Equation 2 is simply untrue.
The reason the variables in equation 1 are squared is because every one of them must be treated as a vector quantity. That is, x is not just a number, it is a number with a direction relative to the other terms in the equation. This means that the time variable ct or T must also be a vector quantity. If c is a constant, ct and T are vectors with the same kind of units as x, y and z.
In these equations the Time vector is on the right side. This means it cannot be a part of the 3D universe we inhabit. There can never be a separate axis for Time. Merged space-time is impossible in reality.
‘The’ Einstein based his STR (‘special theory’ of relativity), on the invalid premise that the speed of light through a vacuum, devoid of masses or electrical charges, is the invariant constant c, approximately 186,000 miles or 300,000 Kilometers per second. This is incoherent and anti-science.
First, Einstotle treats c as a scalar. This means that light can be emitted or reflected from any object, and received by a second, distant object along a straight line through space. This straight line has direction. This is of course a fiction. Light is curved, bent, distorted by gravity and the aether. There is no such thing as a vacuum.
Second, Einstein demands that the velocity of light is invariant. That is, light cannot be related to the velocity of the emitter or receptor, which set it apart from all the material objects. This is also fictitious. The velocity of the receptor will greatly affect light speed calculation. This has been known since the early 17th century. 19th and 20th century experiments disproved the invariance of light speed.
Third, light speed is anisotropic, difficult to accurately measure and varies depending on conditions. As Galileo said light speed might just be ‘instantaneous’. Consider that if light speed is 186,282 miles per second, then the time required for a light turned on momentarily at A to be reflected back by a mirror at B, with a distance of just 1 mile between the two, would be an elapsed time of 5.36821 millionths of a second. This is what Galileo tried to measure and gave up. Measuring light speed is a fool’s errand.
Further, Einstotle ignored the speed or calculation of time itself, a subjective domain, enslaved to variables and assumptions. Using the speed of light as the basis of Relativity undermines the entire philosophy. The speed of light per se, is built on many assumptions, which are unproven. Einstein even admitted light speed is variant.
Simple disproof
Anyone can quickly and scientifically rubbish Relativity. Einstein created his make-believe space-time dimension by imagining that a small portion of the physical universe could be represented by a straight line between the two points. He called this line the x axis and the distance between the two points the distance Δx.
This distance could be represented as a vector with a magnitude Δx and a direction with the distance measured from A →B or arbitrarily, the distance B →A, measuring the opposite direction along the x axis. The magnitudes of A→ B and B→A are equal, but the two vectors are opposites. Either A or B could be chosen as the starting point.
The time of the measurement could be arbitrarily called t=0 or any other value, and it would make no difference to the measurement if both points were to be considered stationary, unmoving relative to each other as time progressed. Let’s consider the following:
1. Time would be the same at both points
2. Time passes at the same rate everywhere (this is denied by Relativity, see below); the 2 points would always be located Δx units apart (given below by ‘r’)
3. If the two points are moving relative to each other along the x axis the question is which of the two should be chosen as the origin, or fixed point for the measurements, given there is nothing to recommend one point over the other
4. For an observer at ‘point A’, the x-axis is a straight line into space, with ‘time’ a separate axis running at right angles to the straight line
5. For this same observer, point B must appear to have the same configuration
2 masses or points, A and B, which are stationary to each other
If the universe is expanding at a constant velocity c, and every atom of matter in the universe was given a velocity, c, through three-dimensional space, we can infer (incorrectly) that all matter has an energy proportional to the mass and square of velocity. This leads to the incorrect equation:
Equation 3: E = MC2
Where E is the energy derived from the expulsion of all matter from a central location at the moment of the Biggest Banging. There is no conceivable way a significant mass can acquire energy greater than this. This equation is false and without proof. (Nuclear power and atomic bombs are simply examples of pent up energy when neutrons are ejected from atomic nuclei and decompose with enormous energy, due to the release of the electron velocities near c.)
Now let’s add movement and you see the fraud outlined below.
The problem Einstein was trying to solve was that the distance between two moving objects looked like it was both Δx = ct-vt for light the opposite direction as the velocity and Δx =ct + vt for light going the other way. Yet the distance at the instant these values were measured appeared to be the same, for light had a constant velocity regardless of the movement of the source relative to the receptor.
For both equations to be true at the same time, either v was zero, or c was infinite. A conundrum for Einstotle which he resolved with a cheap party trick.
The rabbit in the hat
There are many equations that I will leave out, to get to the main STR equation.
All of the other equations of special relativity are derived from this one.
Δt′ (delta t prime): This is the time interval measured by the observer who is moving at a high speed.
Δt (delta t): This is the time interval measured by the observer who is stationary or moving slowly.
v: This is the relative speed between the two observers (how fast Observer 2 is moving compared to Observer 1).
c: Invariant speed of light in a vacuum
The square root part (1−c2v2): The Lorentz factor, itself a tautology without proof explained here.
This equation states that time will pass differently for people moving at different speeds.
Einstein was able to make this equation work by using a party trick that amounts to setting ct - vt = 1 and ct + vt = 1 then declaring the ratios were v/c=1 and v/c=-1.
1. The square of each of these is v2/c2 so the squares are equal and the square root is + v/c, for both starting equations.
2. This ignores the rule that if you square two numbers of like positive sign, you get square roots with the same sign. If they were of different signs, you get one of each.
3. Or we can say that both represented vectors of the same magnitude, and we could ignore the fact that they pointed opposite directions.
The bottom line is that this equation is a mathematical sleight of hand, but it resulted in a set of equations which appeared to solve the problems with the invariability of the speed of light.
Time
From the above fraudulent equation Einstein was able (mendaciously) to assert that time is passing more slowly at B than it is at A, and that a velocity measured by B’s clock will show the velocity to be lower than the measurement of the distant observer indicates. Thus, the velocity calculated at point A would be different if calculated at point B, using the measurements taken at point A:
Because the distances are measured using the lower calculated time, distances measured using B’s clock will be shorter than those using A’s clock. Thus:
The only way Einstein could make this work was to conclude that energy would be converted into increased mass using the inverse of his shrinking factor to indicate that the mass of a remote object increased as the velocity attributed to it by a distant observer increased.
Not only is the equivalence of mass and energy a false conclusion, but all the other equations are inaccurate depictions of reality.
Einstein “proved that v + c was essentially the same as v - c”, which is exactly true only for v = 0, but closer to the truth is v <c. The same is true for all of the equations of STR. In other words they are false.
Not only do the equations of STR provide absurd values for the variations in the relative rate of time passage at distance but also for all of the physical characteristics of the objects, length, width, mass and velocity.
Bottom line
The above clearly renders Relativity a complete nonsense and absurdity.
Scientism and its cosmological fraud have perverted the lights of ‘science’ (and the speed of light).
An immense error, a single, faulty misconception that c is the velocity of light in a vacuum, is at the fetid, dark heart of black magic-physics and cosmology.
Though we have outlined many issues with Newtonian mechanics on this substack, it is fair to state that Newton’s laws of motion and gravity are more accurate to describe the interactions of simple models (a few orbs, our solar system) than the party-trick maths of Einstein.
An easier explanation for light is that c is the rate of change of time and also serves as a conversion factor for time units into distance units and vice versa. The true value of the speed of light is probably so close to infinite that we will never be able to accurately measure it.
If c is nearly infinite, or at least variant, this would greatly reduce the age of the universe and our own planet and annihilate modern physics and cosmology! Heads will explode.
Galileo was right, Einstein as usual was wrong. Relativity is just abstract maths, and cheap party tricks. Cue the hat, rabbit and the rabid applause and cheering from an adoring mass who need a religion, want to be ‘the science’ and feel superior, but have no idea what any of it means.
All hail.
===
H. Nordenson, (1969) Relativity, Time and Reality, Georg Allen and Unwin Ltd., London.
J. E. Persson, (2010) The empirical background behind relativity, Physics Essays Vol. 23, (634-640).
Robert Resnick (1972) Wikibook: Special Theory of Relativity, Basic Concepts of Relativity and Early Quantum Theory
Kenneth Schaffner (1972), Nineteenth-century aether theories, Oxford
Florentin Smarandache (2013) Unsolved problems in special and general relativity
C. C. Su, (2001), J. C. Eur. Phys 21, 701-715
Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1910), A History of the theories of aether and electricity
2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; Matthew 24:24