Relatively Ridiculous
Relativity is based on the assertion that the speed of light is constant and it is the reference for all other measurements. Time, distance, and mass will vary depending on the observed speed of light. For every moving object there exists a different reference frame depending on their observed speed of light.
When an object moves both time and distance will change to maintain their ratio, thereby keeping a constant speed of light. For the moving object, in its reference frame, there is no distortion of either time or distance it is only from an object in a different reference frame that both the time and distance of the moving object changes.
Time also slows with increasing gravity so here too there must be an increase in distance in order to keep the ratio of distance over time constant. With gravity, however, the distance is not measured by the motion of an object but by how far that object is from the center of gravity of the other object. This means that to an outside observer as an object gets closer to a mass and time expands the distance to the object must also expand. The closer the object gets to the center of gravity the further away it appears to be.
To examine this assertion we will use a spaceship being attracted to a massive object by gravity and what an observer on the spaceship and an observer on the object, in front of the spaceship, will observe.
The force of gravity will cause the spaceship to accelerate towards the object. As its velocity and energy increases, according to special relativity, not only will time slow and distance increase but the mass of the spaceship will also increase.
This sets up a chain reaction where an increase in cause (mass/gravity) produces an effect (velocity/energy) that produces greater cause (mass/gravity). The force of gravity between the spaceship and massive object will increase not only because of the shortening distance between them but also because the increase of the spaceship’s mass will be producing a greater force of gravity.
Neither the observer on the object or the one in the spaceship will notice this change in mass. To the observer on the spaceship everything on the ship is behaving normally. When he looks out the window he will see the massive object coming towards him but understands that it is actually him and his spaceship that are moving towards the object.
Because his observation is of a different reference frame than the one he is in, what he will observe will be the same as what the observer on the object observers.
They will both see the other observer coming towards them but as the speed of the spaceship increases both time and distance will expand so it will appear to both that the spaceship is slowing. An object with mass can never reach the speed of light so the time dilation and speed of the object can only continually slow.
As the spaceship moves into a stronger gravitational field there will be a separate slowing of time and increase in distance but this increase in distance will be in the distance between the object and the spaceship and the object, not the distance the spaceship is traveling. With the two separate time dilations what both observers will see is the spaceship slowing, coming to a stop, and then moving away from the massive object.
Before the observers can celebrate their survival the spaceship will smash into the object and obliterate both of them. Gravity is the reality and it is unaffected by the beliefs or perceptions of the observers.
It used to be that a person who lived in a fantasy world disconnected from reality was called a lunatic and ignored or put in an institution. Now they are called physicist who are put in charge of institutions and given money to create illusions to preserve the delusional made up universe they have created.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Photios
| #
Argue as much as you like,
Achilles always overtakes the toroise.
Reply
Tom
| #
Relativity is based on observations not fantasy. If you are going to attack this theory you need to need to identify where the observations have been incorrect not the conclusions, I doubt you will find any flaws in the mathematics constructed around these observations.Hope we get more thoroughly constructed arguments than this in future otherwise this site goes into the bin
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom,
I agree almost totally with your comment. However, before you you leave this ‘site’, find the recent (but a few days old) posting of Michael Clarke’s effort to initiate a discussion here at PSI. Michael’s posting hasn’t yet generated ten comments and Herb’s posting has already generated 13 as I compose this comment. And ‘relative’ to Michael’s posting the majority of the fewer comments are those written by he and I.
I have been critical of what he writes but every once in a while I see something, of which I disagreed, is actually the TRUTH. Like you cannot measure the atmosphere (a gas) with a thermometer because any radiation which might ‘heat’ the molecules (atoms) of the gas will likely ‘heat’ the atoms of liquid or solid matter much more strongly because of the great ‘density’ difference between a common gas and common liquid and solid matter.
So please go to Michael’s essay and become part of the discussion. he is attempting to ‘create’.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I have just agreed with your claim that a thermometer cannot measure the temperature of a gas (atmosphere). But now provide a line (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=tbl&date=2021-01-06&p1=dpsp&p2=upsp&p3=nip&p4=diff&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p16=at) to various measurement being measured at a NOAA natural laboratory. This data is being continuously measured and reported each minute. In the plot of air temperature we see that the air temperature rapidly changes several degrees. Can you explain how the temperature measuring device is so unstable. Cannot the government find an instrument that has a greater stability if the instrument is not mearsuring the temperature of atmosphere whose temperature is rapidly changing several degree from one minute to the next?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Not sure about some of the relationships involved above, but one key to the problem is to take observations and develop the math, not the math and then try to fit the observations to it. It is a balancing act between pure math and good observations. Unfortunately, math has tended to come first and then make the observations fit it. Pretty much, the Universe does not do infinity of anything, but math does, which is the problem. We must avoid the temptations of infinites.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles,
You re right about math and reality. Not only does reality not do infinity it doesn’t do zero or negative numbers. Either sometning exist or it doesn’t. With math you can multiply or square less than nothing (-) and produce something (+). This does not happen in reality. My uncle once told me that the number of right answers for a problem was the same as the largest exponent in the problem. With reality there is only one correct answer.
Herb
Reply
Tom
| #
Reality does infinity all the time, until we understood the concept of infinity Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the tortoise can not be resolved. I think you are attaching the limits of our ability to measure or observe the universe with reality and the abstract constructions using pure reason with fantasy. Try it the other way around??
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
The paradox is a result of math not being reality. I can argue that a circle or sphere cannot have a fixed area because pi is not a finite number (continues without repeating). but in reality they do have fixed areas.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
The race is about velocity, not distance. If Achilles has 100 times the velocity of the tortoise (Va=!00Vto) then the time when Achilles will be the same distance as the tortoise is tVa=tVto +100. 100tVto=tVto +100. 99tVto=100. tVto=1.0101. Whatever the time unit for the speed of the tortoise is, Achilles will pass it in 1.02 of those units (ignoring any time dilation resulting from Achilles’ greater speed).
Herb
Reply
judy
| #
Marjorie and I were suitably baffled through most of the article. But we realised just towards the end of the article that you are challenging the consensus. Well stated for the start of a different hypothesis.
Reply
Roslyn Ross
| #
Do we observe the world as it is or do our observations create the world we believe we see? That is the question.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
“Do we observe the world as it is or do our observations create the world we believe we see?”
After many decades of living, and having exceeded the global adult median age by some margin, I have come to the conclusion that people’s observations create worlds they perceive while believing they are seeing truly. Each generation subtly changes this perception. Each generation forms its own conformation biases, their own social pressure to conform to the logic (or otherwise) of the day. Thankfully some, the lonely few, see beyond, see above and below is generational mantra and view the world, the universe, as it really is. These lonely few are the ones to seek out and to gain from them real knowledge.
The observations may remain the same but as each generation tries to reiterate the reality (or unreality!) the last generation have left them. For this newer generation their observations are from a slightly different angle — an angle that depends on the change in science, politics, and social pressures of the day.
Reply
very old white guy
| #
a now deceased business friend of mine used to say that perception was reality. That was usually true when it came to sales. Physics gets a bit of a workout these days and much of the exercise is non productive. We humans can only see or perceive that which is visual and distortions don’t change the reality, just our view.
Reply
Squidly
| #
You can never interact with our world in “real time” .. I can never communicate with your “present”, I can only communicate with your “past”, because there is distance between us and it takes light and information time to get from you to me and vice-versa. The same is with anything in our world or universe. We cannot ever see the “present”, we can only see the “past”.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Squidly,
I believe you are correct and I believe it is termed the Uncertainty Principle
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Davo Jaeger
| #
There is NO division of past, present or future! If so, tell me how long the present moment lasts. How long will it take for the future to become the present? We can subdivide linear time infinitely and therefore, according to basic math, it’s never going to be recognizable; the differences between any part of linear time. I believe ‘time’ is cyclical. Man invented linear time for control over aspects of life. No other beings, to my knowledge, need linear time, only humans. Does it make life more enjoyable? No. It makes control easier and places stress on us daily.
There is no past, present of future, it’s all one.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Squidly,
There is no time , just energy. Energy produces motion and change and everything changes differently depending on its energy. Time is just a means of comparing different energy. A year is an approximate measurement of the orbital energy of the Earth, a day the rotational energy of the Earth. People use these common reference points to communicate with other just as they use the reference of a meter or gram to communicate.
A dog year is an attempt to equate the life span of a dog to that of a human and an attempt to correlate the energy of two different species.
There is no past, no future, only the present. Out remembrance of a past is an inaccurate concept of reality that is a benefit for our survival. Our projection of a future is just a guess based on our belief of the past.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
“Time also slows with increasing gravity so here too there must be an increase in distance in order to keep the ratio of distance over time constant.”
And;
“The force of gravity will cause the spaceship to accelerate towards the object. As its velocity and energy increases, according to special relativity, not only will time slow and distance increase but the mass of the spaceship will also increase.”
These statements imply that gravity can increase ad infinitum. However, if we use the Newtonian constant G as a reference value for gravity in the solar system, then G will be higher elsewhere, if the force of gravity increases, as proposed.
When G reaches a value 39 power times greater than in the solar system, we reach the point where atoms can no longer stay composed, and the spaceship will no longer exist. At this point the atoms get pulled apart and seperate into their component atomic particles.
And;
“Before the observers can celebrate their survival the spaceship will smash into the object and obliterate both of them. Gravity is the reality and it is unaffected by the beliefs or perceptions of the observers.”
If the object is a Black Hole it will not be obliterated, but simply recycle the spaceship into cosmic rays, and IMO gravity energy through the formation of gravitons.
See https://bosmin.com//PSL/NEGATRONS.pdf
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
If the speed of light is not constant then black holes, singularities, and fusion do not exist. A singularity is the result of a large star converting mass into energy and losing that mass by radiation. The greatest mass and gravitational field occurs at the birth of the star and continuously declines, with its smallest mass and gravitational field being in the form of the singularity. I used the term “massive object” instead of singularity on purpose. Before a neutron star collapses into a singularity, I read that its diameter is seven miles. In the context of the universe seven miles is nonexistent. It all boils down to distance to the mass. If the neutron star was able to radiate energy with it having greater mass and gravity, then the event horizon for the singularity must be less than seven miles.
As we’ve discussed before I do not believe that gravity is a function of mass. (if inertial mass (resistance to movement) is equal to gravitational mass (the cause of movement) how can gravity cause objects to move?) The factor G, Newton created, was to make the data (Kepler’s law for orbits dV^2 is constant) fit the equation for forces (F=M1M2/d^2) and provide a source for the force (mass) as the concept of energy was unknown. If you change Newton’s first law, An object will continue in a straight line unless a force acts upon it., to An object will maintain its energy unless it gains or loses energy., there is no need for a force of gravity. Object orbit because they are in equilibrium with the energy radiated by the larger object.
Herb
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
“This means that to an outside observer as an object gets closer to a mass and time expands the distance to the object must also expand. The closer the object gets to the center of gravity the further away it appears to be.”
This is completely wrong. As you get closer to the mass, time SLOWS DOWN and distances get SHORTER,………until, at the event horizon of a black hole, time has stopped altogether and distances have shrunk to zero. Space has no volume (height), and so has become and effective hologram around the surface of the horizon.
You clearly do not understand relativity theory.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
“s you get closer to the mass, time SLOWS DOWN and distances get SHORTER,………until, at the event horizon of a black hole, time has stopped altogether and distances have shrunk to zero. Space has no volume (height), and so has become and effective hologram around the surface of the horizon.
Interesting theory. However if time has stopped and distances shrunk to zero how can things ‘fall into a black hole’. There is no time to progress through and no space to traverse, matter at the event horizon should stand still forever as there is no where to go, and no time to get there. 🙂
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
Einstein’s theory of equivalence (Because there is no way to distinguish between acceleration and gravity they are the same.) means that whatever happens to time and distance with acceleration will happen with gravity. If acceleration cause time to slow and distance to increase then increasing gravity will do the same.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You began: “Relativity is based on the assertion that the speed of light is constant and it is the reference for all other measurements.”
More important in SCIENCE than measurements are simple observations. The problem in this statement is the word-ALL.
Simple, common observation is lighting and thunder. I see lighting; I hear thunder. First, I have to decide if they are related to s single event or are what I see and what I hear just coincidence?
Does the lighting ‘bolt’ I see travel in a straight line? Or, does the lighting bolt spontaneously appear in the smallest element of time that I can imagine?
Now, I have often actually count outl-loud between the time I saw the lighting bolt and the time I heard the thunder and used this number to estimate the distance of the lighting bolt from where is was when I saw and heard. As I concluded that this time and distance was due to that the speed of light relative to the speed of sound was much faster. How much faster I do not know but if do know that the difference between these two speeds depend upon what the speed of light is and what the spend of sound was. Which I cannot could until I make other observations to not only only quantitatively measure time with the best possible precision and to measure quantitative;y the distance between two points with the best possible precision. Then I have to assume that the light I see and the sound I hear are moving along what geometers term a right (straight) line.
Now, because of all these necessary measurements, which cannot be made with absolute accuracy, a SCIENTIST accepts he/she can never learn the TRUTH but the SCIENTIST also accepts that he/she can observe that which is absolutely not the TRUTH..
Now what I am not sure about is does Herb purposefully write what he does because he accepts the TRUTH of what Galileo is said to have stated: “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”
Therefore I ponder: Is Herb deliberately trying to create confusion so we will discover ‘knowledge’ in ourselves? Of course, because I am not a mind-reader, I cannot answer this for Herb.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply