The core of the Relativity Magic Show: the 'Observer' in their own 'reference frame'

According to Einstotle and his cult, there is no reality. We all live in separate reference frames. The only 'absolute' is the invariance of Light Speed (which is of course falsified).

Einstein the little magician

“An almost equally effective means of escaping difficulties is the introduction of ‘the observer.’ When the Einstein theory appears to lead to incompatible objective results, they are written off as merely different appearances but claimed as realities when some actual phenomenon has to be explained.”

(Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, p. 180)

Light, Frames, & Philosophy

Standard textbook ‘explanation’ of the ‘observer’. Note that if this train carriage crashed into a mountain, Einstein would allege that the mountain and the Earth could have crashed into the train, which pace its observer, may have been at rest. After all there is no reality, and everything is ‘relative’.

Word Salads

One of the most risible aspects of the philosophy of Relativity, is its indiscriminate and peculiar use of an ‘Observer’. If you prove that light speed is variant (Sagnac, Michelson-Morley, Dayton Miller etc), the Relativist will simply declare that this is only true in ‘your reference frame’ by ‘your observer’.

If we move the reference frames and ‘observer’ around, then presto, everything is ‘relative’ and light speed is indeed finite. The entire philosophy of Relativity is based on an ‘observer’ viewing something at the absolute and finite speed of light (whatever that might actually be), hitting the retina. Relativity is composed of the following assumed postulates:

1. Light speed is the only absolute in the universe and its speed is finite (this is wrong and admitted as erroneous by Einstein). Relativity demands that every observer receives light hitting their retina at an absolute speed.

2. Virtually every idea and formula surrounding Special Relativity is based on ‘what the observer sees’ at this invariant (unchanging) speed of light as it hits the retina.

3. Each ‘observer’ sits in their own ‘reference frame’ or grid or map. You in your chair is one ‘frame’. Myself crushing my own chair is another frame. We both see the same event. We can both mathematically describe it from completely different observer viewpoints. I saw the cat eat the bird. You saw the bird fly into the cat’s mouth. We can use maths to prove both.

4. There is no absolute framework, just ‘relative frameworks’ and the only ‘absolute’ in Relativity is the speed of light in vacuo (vacuums don’t exist in space of course).

This observer-related reference frame is referred to as the ‘inertial frame of reference’. Newton’s First Law of Motion is also called the Law of Inertia. It states:

An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an external force.”

For instance if 100.000 people view an event at a sporting activity, there would be 100.000 inertial frames of reference. An inertial frame is the foundation frame, the place of no change. If the foundation is not moving (you in your chair), the law of inertia says it remains motionless. The opposite of this would be an ‘accelerated frame’, which is considered non-inertial (gravity for example within the General Theory of Relativity).

If the foundation frame is moving (you are now walking), the ‘law of inertia’ says it remains in motion unless compelled upon by a net external force. By consequence an object with ‘large mass’ will require a net new force greater than that mass to influence it. You walk into a wall, or are hit by a car. The same exists for the Earth, the Earth is reputed to be in motion with the Sun’s gravitational attraction on this planet compelling and forcing an orbital path.

A core tenet of the Einstein fraud, is that Relativity can conjure up as many observers and ‘inertial frames’ as is necessary to support its tenets. Whether any of this is real or not is entirely in the imagination and mind of the thought-experimenter and how they manipulate the maths. No physical science supports the above ‘postulates’ of Relativity.

Inertia and Relativity

Starting in the 12^th century the study of optics began in a Europe, which had assimilated and defeated the relentless pagan incursions of Muslims, Vikings, Avars, Magyars and Saxons. Peace and stability beget innovation. Eyeglasses were developed by the end of the 13^th century and macro-optics or telescopic instruments by the end of the 16^th century. The 17th century owes its ‘discoveries’ to earlier centuries.

When Galileo peered through his Venetian-built telescopic lens around 1610, he observed the elliptical orbit of Venus around the Sun. This does not prove heliocentricity of course, but it infers or hints that the Earth might also be mobile. What he and early Relativists did not posit, was that the Sun must also move around the ‘centre’ of the solar system, which must in turn revolve around the centre of a galaxy. Pace ‘modern science’, all physical laws must be the same in any ‘reference frame’. This includes the Sun. This is problematic for Copernicans.

What Galileo and others in the 17^th century surmised in developing Galilean-Newtonian ‘Relativity’, was that the Sun was the inertial centre.

Copernicanism as a system of thought and science can be summarised as the adoption of inertia to be the prime organizing principle for the understanding and description of cosmology with specifically, the Sun as the inertia object, not the Earth.

This concept of solar physical inertia was clearly identified, and the realization of its significance was developed through the works of Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and others.

Within the inertia-theory it could also be scientifically possible to adopt a non-inertial system of coordinates with respect to the Earth (the Tychonic system for example). In this model the Earth could be regarded as the stationary centre, the rest of the planets as mobile. But given the general ‘law of inertia’ there did not seem to be an imperative to consider this.

Astronomically we cannot change the fact that Venus circles the Sun and by extension we cannot alter the intrinsic relations between objects, which are readily expressed in terms of inertial coordinates. This is the essence of Copernicanism. There is nothing illogical in any of this.

It is not that simple

It is important to state a little-discussed fact.

If Newton’s laws are right and there is an inertial mass, it will be far greater than the combined mass of the universe. If the Earth was the inertial mass of the universe (close to its barycentre), you can mathematically prove that the universe rotates around the Earth.

If an inertial mass exists, that would be the centre of the universe, and there is no scientific reason why a smaller mass (the universe) would not rotate around that larger inertial mass. This is never discussed. The implications are too vast.

The cosmological model might therefore be a lot more complicated than we imagine and basic laws of motion nullify Relativity.

1. Premised on Galilean Relativity it is declared that the velocity of both the sender of light and the receiver, impact the velocity of light and its speed. Einsteinian Relativity denies this which demands that there is one and only one, absolute speed of light.

2. By logic therefore, Einstein is forced into creating an infinite number of ‘reference frames’, to break down any ‘system’ from an absolute or even a coherent system, into infinity ‘inertial frames’, where ‘observers’ can calculate their own ‘absolute-only’ light speed.

Further, if we look at Einstein’s attempt to base physics on arbitrarily selected inertial systems wherein each observer is in their own preferred reference frame, this is akin to a universe in which there is no absolute reality. Every Neo lives in his/her/it/zhe’s own dream world. There is no immovable aether, Earth, Sun, or any immovable frame. As 2 physicists complain:

“Einstein theorized...that the movement of light is a mathematical absolute for any circumstance of motion...Where Ptolemy theorized a geocentric universe, Einstein, upon the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, theorized a “light-centric” universe... In essence, Einstein theorized a “self-centric” universe, where the entire universe of the individual conforms to the individual’s motion.”¹

Einstein’s philosophy is based on ‘light speed’ and the complete decentralisation of all reference frames, with no absolutes existing anywhere. Both ‘postulates’ are absurd. There must be an absolute to measure the speed or velocity of any object accurately.

We saw this same ‘mathematical’ conjuring in the 19^th century to explain away the thousands of experiments which found no movement of the Earth. Fresnel for example, produced the magic-birthday-trick of aether ‘drag’ mathematics rather than bothering to perform physical experiments in order to dismiss the Earth-immobility implications of the Arago and Airy experiments. Einstein took this further changing time, dimensions and mass in Special Relativity and introducing the complex equations of tensor calculus and non-Euclidean geometry of General Relativity to explain Fresnel’s hitherto unexplainable astral phenomena.

As Einstein viewed it, Fresnel had ‘failed’ due to his insistence on incorporating the aether into his abstract equations. Einstein took a knife and simply cut out the aether (an absolute), from Fresnel, Lorentz and his ‘transform’ equations (the basis of Relativity); and Maxwell’s magnetism equations.

The only way to destroy an absolute was to merge space with time and invent the ‘observer’.

Akin to an angel, or a spirit in the physical world, the ‘observer’ can be moved around, between, into and through any inertial reference point. In this way Einstein can dismiss the 1871 Airy experiment which found no movement of the Earth and remove the aether:

[Einstein] “…as seen by the observer [it] is changed by the fraction 1-1/η²…No assumption of any ‘dragging’ is involved in the relativity arguments, nor is the existence of an ether even postulated.”²

Lengths contract but not really?

An obvious question arises in using Einstein’s own equation in the quote above. If two observers are moving relative to each other, then the length for one observer as compared to the other should be less by a factor of 1 – 1/η². But given there is no preferred observer, this would mean that each observer must see the other as being shorter, which is an obvious contradiction. Therefore both will clock ‘slower’. Relativity theory attempts to answer this paradox.

In Einstotle’s fantasy world, 2 ‘spaceships’ pass each other and measure the other ship to be ‘shorter’ and its clock slower….So much science.

Relativist Martin Gardner explains it for the confused:

“For Lorentz and Fitzgerald the contraction was a physical change, caused by pressure of the ether wind. For Einstein it had only to do with the results of measurement… Lorentz and Fitzgerald still thought of moving objects as having absolute “rest lengths”. When the objects contracted, they were no longer their “true” lengths. Einstein, by giving up ether, made the concept of absolute length meaningless. What remained was length as measured, and this turned out to vary with the relative speed of the object and observer….How is it possible for each ship to be shorter than the other? You ask an improper question. The theory does not say that each ship is shorter than the other; it says that astronauts on each ship measure the other ship as shorter.”³

What gibberish. So lengths shortening are real but not real. They don’t really shrink in motion but appear to. So the ships are not shorter but measured to be such. This is a core tenet of Relativity. What precisely causes these mythical spaceships to measure the other ship as shorter?

In this ‘thought experiment’ we have ET in a ‘spaceship’ (at the speed of light of course), covering 1.86 million miles in 10 seconds (the diagonal line). You are Hans Solo, grinning, and go horizontally away from this spaceship at the same speed (x axis). From Hans’ point of view, in your fixed frame of inertial reference, as you pass near to ET, the light wave goes down and up a shorter distance than what you observed (1.850.700 miles vs 1.86 million miles).⁴

Because space travel is so easy, Hans and ET are meeting for a drink on Mars. They take different routes to the same end point. As they pass near to each other, both actornauts will clock a slower time for the other spaceship. This is physically and materially impossible.

When we divide this distance by the time it took the beam to go down and up, you also obtain the finite speed of light. The same is true of ET going by Hans Solo in the first spaceship in the opposite direction. But in reality, the light path is shorter. How can his result be the same?

There is only one possible explanation pace Relativity -- the other actornaut’s clock is slower than the speed of light!

This is ridiculous of course. So pace the ‘logic’ of Relativity, we will have ET and Hans Solo, each believing that the other’s clock is slower!? So much ‘science’. Let’s take an axe to this.

1. We should note that at the speed of light your head would explode, the spaceship would have melted and no clocking would be necessary.

2. Time itself does not slow down due to motion. This is completely wrong. Time is a subjective calculation against an absolute frame of reference (denied by Relativity).

3. If clocks slow down it does not mean that real time slows down. It only means that something is making the clock tick slower.

4. If the clock is moving against an aether for example, then a resistance will be created, and the clock rate will vary depending on the density of the aether at a given location.

5. Gravity will also slow down clocks (Haefele-Keating experiment 1971), as could radiation, cosmologically energy or flares, or heat within the equipment generated by velocity and motion.

6. There cannot be an inertial frame of reference for light speed, without an absolute frame of reference. What are you comparing light speed to?

The simple fact is that perversely, Relativity has made the Earth an inertial frame, nullifying its own theory!

The wizards wave their way out of this predicament by invoking the Lorentz transformation, which contradictorily, was based on an aether, to make it appear as if the Earth is an inertial frame and is therefore the absolute centre! The irony in this solution is that the Lorentz transform was invented in order to answer the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed the Earth was motionless in space in the aether! Absolutes are anathema to Relativity. Woah, the ‘science’ is just overwhelming.

Astrology, alchemy, and 17^th century magic have nothing over modern physics and Relativity.⁵

Which is more Scientific? Astrologists were very literate with maths and astronomy and had to align cosmological factors with Earthly phenomena. Is Relativity even as advanced as Astrology?

Bottom Line

The ‘observer’ is the key to the Relativity fraud.

1. The clocking or measurement of Time is obviously affected by gravity, radiation, velocity, heat.

2. Time itself is unaffected, since Time is the rate of sequential time calculation by a measuring device.

Einstein’s conflation of acceleration with gravity is simply absurd and unproven. Even if we use Relativity’s rather mindless ‘thought experiment’ of ET and friends flying around at light speed:

• (i) Over a long journey the effects of ‘acceleration’ at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the duration of the journey.

• (ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.

• (iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Actornaut A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of Actornaut B as he passes. He does not need to turn round: he could also be passed by C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to that of A as he passes.

  When C later passes B they can compare clock readings.

The above destroys the Einsteinian thought experiment.

The whole edifice of the ‘observer’ and his own world is simply an absurdity when you analyse, motion, speed and light. As Einstein himself said:

“If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c, I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell’s equations.”⁷

Einstein is now riding on a moonbeam. What he is saying is impossible. If I did jump on the moonbeam, it does not accelerate ahead of me by 300.000 km in the first second. But this is what he is suggesting.⁸

As historian of science John Norton complained:

“This thought experiment (spaceships) has proven immensely popular in accounts of the discovery of special relativity. Who could not fail to be charmed by the image of a precocious sixteen-year-old (Einstein’s apocryphal story that he conjured up these thought experiments as a teenager), whose innocent imaginings lay the groundwork for a great discovery? What is rarely mentioned, however, is that the thought experiment does not quite make sense.”⁹

Norton is polite. None of Relativity makes any sense. But it is ‘settled science’.

All hail.

The Michelson-Morley 1887 experiment; their not-null results, the Aether and implications.

The 'Lorentz Transformation', the basis of 'Relativity' and its tautological, fantasy world.

==

¹ “A Disproof of Relativity (Relativity as a Mathematical Virus)” by D&S Birks, The General Science Journal, http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals /Research%20Papers- Relativity%20Theory/Download/ 1215

²Quoted from Fundamentals of Optics, Francis Jenkins and Harvey White, 1957, pp. 404-405, cited in De Labore Solis, p. 46, emphasis added

³ Martin Gardiner, Relativity Explosion, pp. 50-51.

⁴ John D. Norton’s paper, “Special Theory of Relativity: The Basics” in Einstein for Everyone, pp. 5-10

⁵ Physics: Principles with Applications, fourth edition, Douglas Giancoli, 1995, p. 757.

⁶ “What is wrong with Relativity?” G. Burniston Brown, Vol. 18, 1967, p. 74.

⁷ Autobiographical Notes, written in 1946, published in 1949, cited in Holton’s Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, pp. 311, 359

⁸ April 24, 1951, cited in The Einstein Myth, p. 136.

⁹Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant Electrodynamics Prior to 1905, John D. Norton, University of Pittsburgh, Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science, Jan. 28, 2004, pp. 28-29.