Corruption of Modern Physics 2: Special Theory of Relativity
Continuing the recent posts on Einstein’s mistaken idea of light of frequency ν as a stream of particles named photons, each photon carrying an energy of hν with h Plank’s constant.
Let us recall the analysis of Einstein’s 1905 Special Theory of Relativity (SR) presented in the book Many-Minds Relativity and blog posts on special theory of relativity, showing that SR is not a theory about physics.
This was admitted by Einstein, who quickly gave up SR to turn to General Theory of Relativity in an even deeper state of confusion, see above quote. With Einstein’s theories of relativity modern physics was misled away from the reality of Enlightenment into the fiction of Modernity, from real to fake.
Einstein describes the set up of SR as two observers O and O′ moving with constant velocity with respect to each other, each observer being equipped with a measuring rod to measure distance in space and a clock to measure time, with sticks and clocks of the same fabrication.
The essence of SR is a coordinate transformation between an Euclidean space-time coordinate system (x,t) used by O and a (x′,t′)-system used by O′ connected by the Lorentz (simple linear coordinate) transformation with x and x′ one dimensional space coordinates and t and t′ time coordinates, taking the form
- x′=γ(x−vt), t′=γ(t−vx), γ=1(√1−v2),
- x=γ(x′+vt′), t=γ(t′+vx′).
where |v|<1 is viewed to be express that the two systems are moving with respect to each other with constant speed |v|<1. The Lorentz transformation has the property that a x=t is transformed into x′=t′, which Einstein viewed to express the same speed of light = 1 in both systems, as the basic postulate of SR.
In particular, a light signal emitted at (0,0) from a stationary source in the (x,t)-system is supposed to follow the trajectory x=t for t>0 in the (x,t)-system, and similarly a light signal emitted at (0,0) by a stationary source in the (x′,t′)-system is supposed to follow the trajectory x′=t′ for t′>0 in the (x′,t′)-system.
Lorentz had introduced his transformation well before Einstein took it up, but Lorentz had been careful to note that his transformation was not to be interpreted as a transformation between physical coordinates.
Unfortunately this was not understood by the young Einstein (with little training in physics), who instead came to believe that both systems must represent physical coordinates, because no system seemed to have any preference before the other as an expression of relativity.
This led Einstein to consider the light signals emitted at (0,0) in the two systems described above to be the same light signal, and then described by coordinates in the two systems connected by the Lorentz transformation, thus subject to strange effects of space contraction and time dilation.
But a light signal emitted at (0,0) in the (x,t) system, is not the same as a light signal emitted at (0,0) in the (x′,t′)-system, because the light sources are moving with respect to each other.
More precisely, a light source consists of a collection of atoms extended in space emitting electromagnetic waves over some period of time, and the physics of two such light sources moving with respect to each other is different even if overlapping at (0,0).
Einstein missed this completely crucial aspect by considering space time events supposedly identified by specific isolated space-time coordinates, but then events without physics.
The only reasonable set up from physical point of view is to require the observer/observational equipment to be stationary in the space coordinate system used, as explored in Many-Minds Relativity. A light source can be moving (then generating a Doppler effect), but the observer/observational equipment cannot be allowed to move in the coordinate system being used.
To insist that this restriction must be broken, asking O to make observations in the (x′,t′)-system and vice versa, as Einstein did in his confused state, is to ask for mysteries/paradoxes, which cannot be resolved.
The unavoidable conclusion is that SR does not describe any real physics and so the strange effects of space contraction and time dilation of SR are not real but only fiction.
This should come as a relief for all students of modern physics struggling without success to understand what is only confusion, while teachers of modern physics are expected to claim that they understand that SR for sure is a correct physical theory always agreeing perfectly with observation.
To take home:
- The rate of a clock whether mechanical or atomic cannot be influenced by inertial motion.
- With light second as new (1983) SI unit of space or measuring rod, the speed of light by definition is constant = 1 to all observers, and so Einstein’s basic postulate is an agreement (matter of principle) without real physics. A theory based on postulates without real physics cannot say anything about real physics. The Lorentz coordinate transformation as the essence of SR, does not describe any real physics, because its basic postulate is rather an agreement than physical necessity.
See more here claesjohnson
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Einstein was wrong, just like Newton before him and as all the future “experts” will be.
Reply
Shawn Marshall
| #
I’m just a dumb engineer(Ret). Admitted as an undergrad that I just didn’t understand the special theory of relativity. Got a lot of awkward stares and some people even ‘splained some parts of it to me… too dense to get it. But I don’t think Time exists as a physical quantity …. It’s just an abstraction for describing motion.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Well yes, but a simpler way of understanding your point is to consider viewing an object through an optical lens. The object appears inverted, but we know it is not. This proves that we cannot, (and should not) always rely on observation to define reality. To claim that physics is the science of observation is a false claim. We always must use our imaginations to visualise the reality, sometimes, despite our observations.
On the other hand, time dilation is proven by the GPS, which would not work if we failed to take account of it. So inertial time dilation is, in fact, real.
Also, if you consider an object moving through space at velocity “v” over a distance “s”. Then consider another object moving through space, (where time runs slower), at the same “v”, over distance “s”, (as experienced in this second frame of reference), then, since “v” is distance divided by time, it follows that “s” is RELATIVELY shorter in the second frame of reference. So, in reality, Space does indeed “shrink” as time slows down. This is demonstrated by the Schwarzschild equation for a black hole, where time slows down to zero rate at the event horizon and space “shrinks” to zero size, (height) as a result.
The point is that General Relativity must be correct and it has passed every test it has been subjected to.
Any man who challenges GR is either very brave or has all the evidence to prove it, or, he’s very stupid (or ignorant).
Special Relativity is another matter, and its interpretation can be challenged, although again, the math’ is consistent, rigorous and correct.
Whilst we might see how time might be slowed down by speed, (and I can demonstrate how), it is inconceivable that space can be affected in reality, by motion through it.
I suggest the speed slows time, but that the slowing of time “shrinks” space.
The answer, and there is only one possible answer, is that time must be wavelike. It passes faster then slower then faster, then,…. well, you get the picture. This also explains how light is emitted in waves (of photons), because many more events, (emissions of photons), take place at the peak of the (local) time wave than do so at the trough of the time wave, where time runs slower. Thus, there are bands of many photons interspersed with bands of zero photons, i.e. a wavelike light front. Anyone else got a better explanation?
To get back to the point, if time runs in this way throughout space, oscillating over duration, then to move through space must affect the frequency of the time wave experienced by the traveler. The traveler’s view of the wave blue shifts the faster he moves and this must result in a circular change in time rate, i.e. it obeys the equation of a circle, i.e. it must obey Lorentz. QED. This is the only physical explanation for Lorentz effects. Again, anyone got a better idea?
Don’t forget though, that the blue shifting of the wave observed by the traveler, is NOT what he experiences, it is the view of the stationary frame of reference, i.e. looking out of his porthole. In other words, he sees the rest of the universe moving into the future blue shifted or faster, (since his time has slowed down). To quote Prof Lawrence Krauss in one of his ASU radio interviews, “A photon sees the complete life of the universe, until the end of time, in an instant”. I completely agree with that, but both he, (perhaps unknowingly), and I, are disagreeing with special relativity’s assertion that red shift is observed in the stationary frame when observed from the moving one. i.e. we do not accept that a red shift observation is reciprocal and I respectfully suggest that so far, no one has sat on a Muon and observed the red shift of the experimenter.
I do not have the temerity to disagree with SR nor GR, only the interpretation of certain aspects of SR.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
In reality the time dilation of satellites shows that Einstein was wrong.
According to Einstein, since there is no way to distinguish between gravity and acceleration in a closed container, they are the same. With either an increase in velocity or an increase in the strength of a gravitational field, time will slow and clocks will run slower. This would mean that satellites in lower orbits (with greater velocity and in stronger gravitational fields) would have the slowest clocks and with increasing altitude (less velocity and weaker gravitational fields) the clocks would be faster. This is not what the data shows. It is only by saying Einstein was wrong and a greater gravitational field causes the speed of a clock to increase while velocity causes clocks to slow, that they were able to manipulate the data to show that it proved Einstein was right.
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
What “data”? Who is “they”? Herbphysics is gibberish….this is why he never gets the Nobel Prize for “proving” Einstein was wrong……nevermind his proving neutrinos don’t exist…neither black holes…any other stuff?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The data is the reading of the atomic clocks in orbit around the Earth.”They” are Wikipidiots, like you, who cannot think and believe everything they’re told by “experts”.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
I was not aware of atomic clocks in orbit – tell us about it. Only “non idiots” like you can think and defy the “experts”….while avoiding becoming an expert? Einstein had a higher IQ than you and for every second you have spent on physics – he probably spent hundreds of hours – shortly before he died he wrote a formula in a workbook that was an attempt at a theory of everything.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T.C.,
I see I must remove you from my “do not read’ list.
Sorry I did not understand that which you previously had written.
Have a good day and keep up the good work, Jerry.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Claes and others who agree with him,
At (https://principia-scientific.com/corruption-of-modern-science-light-as-particles/) I wrote one comment in which I closed: “Please explain, with your “mathematics”, all the colors you can see in this photo without referring to Feynman’s light scattering explanations.”
To date neither Claes, Herb, or any other PSI Reader has accepted this challenge. Yes, Feynman, like Einstein, admits that his SCIENCE is not absolutely CERTAIN. They consider that the only thing which can be proven by reproducible observation are what ideas (explanations) are absolutely WRONG!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
VOWG
| #
How does this improve our lives and get us from cradle to grave?
Reply
Purple Helmet
| #
I’ll let you brainboxes argue this one out. Me, I just hear Norm MacDonald on SNL saying, “Seriously, Einstein! What the hell were you thinking?”
Reply