A POSSIBLE UPDATE ON THE INVALIDITY OF A. EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this essay is to highlight some erroneous claims regarding the validity of the theory of relativity proposed by A. Einstein.

The worst part of this anomaly is that these erroneous claims are spread using the latest dissemination tools, such as AI, to perpetuate these fallacies.

We intend to denounce and remind readers of this invalidity by drawing on a summary of the critical essays we have been publishing for some time.

SELECTIONS OF INCORRECT AI ANSWERS

Below, we present a few excerpts of the information obtained from AI when queried about the validity of A. Einstein's theory of relativity.

ANSWERS:

1. “Yes, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is completely valid and remains one of the pillars of modern physics. It has successfully withstood more than a century of empirical testing.”
2. “General Relativity: Explains that gravity is not an invisible force, but a distortion of space and time caused by the mass of objects.”
3. “Everyday Technology: The GPS systems in your mobile phone wouldn't work correctly without applying relativity. Satellites move at high speeds (which slows down their clocks due to special relativity) and are subject to weaker Earth gravity than we are (which speeds them up due to general relativity). Engineers adjust for this time difference.”

CRITICISMS OF THE PREVIOUS AI ANSWERS

We offer the following critiques of the three points mentioned above:

• POINT 1: As we will demonstrate in the following two points, it has NOT successfully withstood more than a century of empirical testing.
• POINT 2: In several essays published some time ago on our blog, we already exposed the fallacies contained within the empirical evidence cited by AI. Among them, we cited: “The Thought Experiment on Light Deflection: A Contradiction by A. Einstein” and “The Deformation of Space: An Error by A. Einstein.” We will also address the topic of “moving clocks,” which we published in our booklet on Amazon titled “The Errors of A. Einstein: A Brief Summary.”

We now transcribe a summary of the aforementioned essays.

OUR ESSAY TITLED: “THOUGHT EXPERIMENT ON THE DEFLECTION OF LIGHT: A CONTRADICTION BY A. EINSTEIN”

Summarizing the argument of this essay, we state the following:

Initially, A. Einstein attributed the deflection of starlight to the curvature of space caused by gravity. Later, he abandoned the fallacy that space deformation was involved in the deflection of light and seemed to attempt to rectify his error by stating that the deflection of starlight is caused directly by gravity, without “space” acting as a mediator.

Finally, he cast doubt on whether a gravitational field must even exist for the deflection of light to occur.

JUSTIFYING WHY WE SAY HE “CASTS DOUBT”

In the book titled “The Evolution of Physics”, by A. Einstein and Leopold Infeld, we find that the authors offer another justification for the deflection of light through a thought experiment. Given this justification, we ask: Did A. Einstein change his opinion on the cause of the deflection of starlight and abandon the fallacy of the “warping of space”?...

SUMMARY OF THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT IN THE AFOREMENTIONED BOOK USED TO SUPPORT THE CAUSES OF LIGHT DEFLECTION

As a thought experiment, they propose using an elevator pulled by a rope attached to its ceiling, which imparts an accelerated motion. They attempt to equate the result of this acceleration with the action of the force of gravity.

(NOTE: We already demonstrated in one of our previous essays that this equivalence is a fallacy.)

In the left wall of the elevator, there is a small hole through which a beam of light enters. This light beam strikes the right wall at a different height relative to the elevator floor than that of the entry hole. This is what an observer standing outside the elevator would see. From this observation, they deduce that the beam of light has bent as a result of a force similar to gravity…

This thought experiment seems deeply flawed to us. It describes the movement of the elevator, not the nature of the light beam. Let us recall what we have repeated many times in our previous essays: they confuse the verb TO SEE with the verb TO BE.

(NOTE: We caution the reader not to confuse this elevator thought experiment, applied to the bending of a light beam, with the elevator thought experiment described by A. Einstein in his book “Relativity: The Special and the General Theory”, where he attempts to pass off the fallacy of general relativity.)

Continuing from this discussion, and drawing upon another of our essays, we denounce the invalidity of the empirical evidence touted by AI.

OUR ESSAY TITLED: “THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE: AN ERROR BY A. EINSTEIN”

We transcribe excerpts of this essay in italics:

Regarding the “deformation of space,” a historian tells us the following:

“A. Einstein, contradicting Newton, said that gravity was not a force that pulled on things, but rather that things move not when pulled, but when pushed. By this he meant that if an object falls toward another, it is not because of an attractive force, but because the larger object curves space like a whirlpool in a bathtub.”

The text continues:

“In Einstein’s universe,” the researcher continues, “space and time are distorted by gravity. The Earth distorts the space around it very slightly due to its mass.”

The researcher further notes:

“Researchers believed that the Sun, due to its gravity, would curve space in such a way that this phenomenon would become noticeable in the perceived position of starlight.”

(NOTE: Regarding the historical account of the experiments conducted to demonstrate the validity of A. Einstein's thesis, the reader can consult the web article titled “How the General Theory of Relativity Was Proven”. The image provided is the one appearing in that source.)

Difficulties in Recording the Phenomenon

Accounts show that the primary difficulty in observing this phenomenon was that intense sunlight prevented starlight deflection from being seen or photographed. Researchers had to wait for solar eclipses, which occurred periodically in different regions of the Earth. Several expeditions were organized to coincide with these eclipses.

THE FALLACY OF THE FALSE CAUSE: A BLUNDER

In these expeditions—unless a historian proves otherwise—we believe a fundamental blunder was committed:

Instead of investigating the CAUSE, they merely documented an EFFECT.

With this error, they contributed little to science. Even if the EFFECT were photographed, it added little to the validity of Einstein's thesis. For this reason, we refer to such an experiment as “THE FALLACY OF THE FALSE CAUSE.”

OTHER CRITICISMS OF THE EXPERIMENT

Beyond failing to achieve its required scientific objective, the dubious results obtained from the photographic plates were also criticized.

The renowned physicist Stephen Hawking stated: “The results obtained by Eddington were a case of knowing in advance the outcome they wanted to get.”

The expedition team to the island of Príncipe has also been accused of data manipulation. A subtle point of contention is that these experiments were conducted shortly after the end of World War I, amidst nationalistic pressures and lingering geopolitical resentments.

POINT 3: EVERYDAY TECHNOLOGY

Contrary to what AI claims, we should not attribute the functioning of everyday technology to the absurdity of time dilation. Doing so muddles concepts and sets science against basic logic.

Here, we examine GPS systems (as cited by AI) and a report regarding atomic clock experiments.

We state at the outset that we do not claim to be experts in these technical implementations; however, we will subject their operational claims to logical examination under the tenets of relativity theory.

In this critique, we consider two approaches:

• A = As the transmission and exchange of a message  (GPS)
• B = As information modified while transported in circular motion (Coriolis Acceleration).

We describe these two approaches below:

A.- AS THE TRANSMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF A MESSAGE

Consider the exchange of messages or images between two transmission and reception stations:

To interpret what we illustrate with this diagram, we offer the following explanation:

• Inside a train car moving at a certain velocity (), there is a pendulum clock.
• The train car illustrates that the clock inside moves along with it (a clock in motion).
• The pendulum clock illustrates how the setup sends a message (e.g., elapsed time).
• An observer stationary on the ground acts as the receiver of the message.

The time reading received by the ground observer in their final viewing differs from the reading received in the first.

How can anyone support the absurd notion that this observed time difference occurs because "time has dilated"?! The difference in time shown by the pendulum clock is simply due to the duration of its spatial displacement.

B.- AS INFORMATION VARIED THROUGH TRANSPORT IN CIRCULAR MOTION (CORIOLIS ACCELERATION)

We turn now to a potential argument regarding the difference in time readings on moving clocks.

Using all our previous blog essays as a "protective shield" against the fallacy of "time dilation," we seek an argument that might explain these clock differences while preserving the honesty of researchers.

To this end, we quote the following passage in italics:

“In 1971, Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating placed four cesium atomic clocks aboard commercial flights. They flew around the world twice: once eastward and once westward. Upon returning to the laboratory and comparing them to ground-based reference clocks, they matched Einstein's predictions exactly!”

PLEASE NOTE! Stating that "they matched Einstein's predictions exactly" means they recorded an EFFECT rather than discovering a CAUSE. The same issue arises here as in the starlight deflection experiment.

The text further notes:

“Their clocks ran 38 microseconds per day faster than those on Earth.”

When dealing with such infinitesimal fractions of time, we ask again: Could this be another case of what Stephen Hawking noted regarding Eddington's light deflection test—that "the results obtained were a matter of knowing in advance the results that were desired"?

A SUGGESTION FOR RESEARCHERS

The physical manner in which this experiment was conducted may shed light on these microsecond variances.

Without delving into complex theoretical formalisms—leaving this suggestion to experimental researchers—we ask: During these flights around the Earth, could the clocks aboard the aircraft have been affected by what mechanical engineers study as “Coriolis Acceleration”? Could this allow us to discard the concept of time dilation entirely? We do not state this dogmatically, but offer it as a constructive suggestion.

To briefly define Coriolis Acceleration:

“Coriolis acceleration is the acceleration experienced by an object moving within a rotating frame of reference. It manifests only when the object moves relative to that rotating frame.”

In this case, the atomic clock is the moving object, and the aircraft circling the rotating Earth serves as the rotating reference frame.

Let researchers evaluate this possibility, but let us move past the fallacy of time dilation!

THE MUON EXPERIMENT FALLACY

We suggest our readers consult one of our recent essays titled: “The Muon Test Fallacy and the Speed of Atomic Particles.”

 

A MISINTERPRETATION BETWEEN THE VERBS TO SEE AND TO BE AND THE SPEED OF ATOMIC PARTICLES

INTRODUCTION

In our previous essay, "The Deception of the Muon Evidence and the Speed ​​of Atomic Particles," we demonstrated the possibility of atomic particles reaching speeds greater than that of light. Now, in this essay, we aim to demonstrate the basis for denying such a possibility.

We will rely on a concept already repeated several times in our previous essays. In them, we addressed the confusion introduced by Albert Einstein when, in his thought experiments, he conflates the verbs "to see" and "to be." We believe that in the relative motion of observed phenomena with respect to a point of reference, they appear transformed, but they are not different.

In this essay, we will demonstrate that this confusion is an aggravating factor in asserting that atomic particles can travel at speeds greater than that of light.

We will use the well-known train car thought experiment to develop our thesis.



A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE TRAIN CAR THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

For our study, we begin with the train car thought experiment described by A. Einstein in his book, "On the Special and General Theory of Relativity."

Just as a reminder, we will say the following: The train car, traveling at a constant, straight speed (V), has a mirror attached to its ceiling. Inside the car, a person shines a beam of light toward the mirror to observe its reflection. The goal is to find a formula that relates the amplitude (∆x) of the physical phenomenon of the light beam reflected in the mirror to the displacement (td) of the car.

This thought experiment serves to justify, INCORRECTLY, that time dilation occurs. They say that for the observer (o) who is fixed on the ground, the time it takes for the light beam to travel (td) is longer than the time perceived by the person inside the car who shone the beam. The aforementioned approach confuses the verb "to see" with the verb "to be."

Books that address this topic present figures such as the one in the following drawing:

Figure 1

This drawing is taken from one of the chapters of the first book in the two interesting volumes titled "Physics" by Raymond A. Seway and John W. Jewert, Jr.)

On the left side of the drawing, the stationary train car and the round trip of the light beam reflected by the mirror are depicted. In the center of the drawing, three positions of the train car's forward motion are shown, intended to demonstrate time dilation (∆t) justified by the extension (v.∆t) encompassed by the physical phenomenon of light reflection.



A MISCONCEPTION THAT WOULD VALIDATE THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING SPEEDS GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Books dealing with the theory of relativity relate the proper time (tp) of the physical phenomenon of light reflection to the travel time (td) of the train car in which the experiment is performed. The equation they give is the following:

(NOTE: This displacement time (td) is what has been represented in the previous figure as: (∆t) . In this formula, (v) is the speed of the wagon and (c) is the speed of light. We can observe that this formula loses its validity for speed values ​​(v) equal to or greater than the speed of light (c). By accepting this idea of ​​invalidity, we reject the possibility that there can be bodies, like the aforementioned wagon, that can travel at speeds (v) equal to or greater than the speed of light (c). And here, the aforementioned incorrect idea generates the denial that there can be atomic particles that travel faster than light.)


(NOTE: Keep in mind that this entire argument is based on the absurdity of accepting the verb "to see" as the verb "to be.")



INTERPRETATION OF THE FORMULA

The aforementioned formula is interpreted as evidence of time dilation. We will see later that this is a fallacy. Let's examine what the formula tells us.

As a first step, we say the following:

We could assume that, in principle, (td) is equal to (tp).

(td) = (tp)

Also, keep in mind that the value of the radicand appearing on the right side of the equation will be less than one.

Another point to consider is that:

(tp) divided by a value less than one increases its value.

For example: 

Consequently, we can say that if we previously proposed that (td) was equal to (tp), we must now admit that the equality has become an inequality.

(td) > (tp)

If we consider that (td) is the length of time the phenomenon lasts as seen by an observer fixed on the ground, and (tp) is the proper time (tp) of the physical phenomenon of the reflection of the light ray, they arrive at the fallacy that time has dilated.



INVALIDITY OF THE FORMULA 

THAT ARE PRESENTED BY BOOKS THAT DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY

In the previous paragraph, we saw that:

When the amplitude (td), the time of observation of the physical phenomenon, is greater than the amplitude of the proper time (tp) of said phenomenon, we arrive at the erroneous conclusion that time has dilated. We say that it appears that time has dilated.

But, apart from the invalidity of the interpretation of said phenomenon, we must study an inconsistency that invalidates the aforementioned formula.

The formula 

Given the involvement of the speed of light, it is practically difficult to verify its validity; we will see that theoretically it cannot be correct.

We present below the mathematical development on which it is based.

We draw the three positions of the wagon's movement.

Figure 2

We select the central carriage. On the right triangle drawn on the right side of the figure, we will relate the Proper Time (tP) of the ray's path to the mirror with the Displacement Time (td) of the carriage from when the ray impacts the mirror until it impacts the carriage

Note that the hypotenuse of the triangle is the Return Time (tr) of the ray; the vertical leg is the Proper Time (TP) of the light ray's travel to the mirror, and the horizontal leg indicates the Displacement Time (td) of the carriage.

(NOTE: The reader should note that this triangle is drawn on the right side of Figure 1)

To relate (td) to (tp) in the aforementioned triangle, we will apply the Pythagorean Theorem. Before formulating the mathematical approach, we impose the following condition, which we mistakenly believe was introduced by one of the authors of the aforementioned formula:

The portion of the wagon's displacement that occupies a time

(td), represented in the diagram as (Δx), is equal to the return time (tr) of the light beam. That is: (td) = (tr)

According to the Pythagorean Theorem.

Demanding compliance with the condition:

(td) = (tr)

This allows us to substitute (tr) for (td), which gives us

Grouping terms gives

We can transform the denominator as follows

And from this we obtain:

Regarding the invalidity of this formula, we say the following:

In the formulation and derivation of this formula, two mathematically incompatible events occur.

Even accepting the error that it were real for physical phenomena to transform simply by moving relative to a fixed observer, we can denounce the other error.

Starting from the right triangle that serves as our mathematical model, we say the following:

If, as we agreed in the previous mathematical development, we impose: (tr) = (td) (a condition)

And

We assume that there exists a speed (v) that is greater than the speed of

That is, (v) > (c) (another condition)

these assumptions produce an inconsistent event in mathematics

since then it implies that: (td). (v) > (tr). (c)

and in a right triangle, it is inconsistent for a leg to be longer

than its hypotenuse.



FACTOR VALIDITY

IN LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION

We may have the following doubt: The expression : 

It appears in the topic of Lorentz Transformations and is called the Lorentz Factor. Because this expression is included within the formula: 

Having ruled its invalidity, we might think that our reasoning lacks coherence.

To validate our reasoning, we state the following: We are dealing with two different aspects related to the relativity of motion. The topic we are addressing in this essay is whether the formula that attempts to relate the duration of a physical phenomenon to the relative time of its displacement from a fixed point is valid. In this matter, we reject this formula and the fallacy of time dilation.

A different topic is the following: It concerns how the variables of a physical phenomenon appear transformed when observed by a moving observer as they move away from the event. We emphasize that here it is the observer who moves, not the physical phenomenon itself, as was the case with the physical phenomenon of light reflection. As a consequence of this approach, the factor: 1/√(V^2/C^2 ) is a way of reducing the units of velocity (v) of displacement to units of light (c). That is, to units of vision according to the distance of the observer.

For more information, the reader can read our essay entitled:

“Theory of Relativity - Mathematical Interpretation of the Lorentz Factor.” In this essay, the formulas indicate that it is a lengthening of the perceived extent of an event depending on the observer's distance. It is not a dilation of time. The events are not different, but they appear different.



A REAL VERSION OF THE PHYSICAL PHENOMENON OF THE REFLECTION OF A LIGHT RAY IN THE MIRROR OF A MOVING TRAIN CAR

We reiterate what we have already discussed in previous essays regarding the confusion introduced by A. Einstein when he considers in his thought experiments that phenomena ARE, that is, that they ARE transformed, instead of saying that they ARE SEEN differently.

Now, regarding the phenomenon in the train car thought experiment,

we say the same thing. The extension of the physical phenomenon of the reflection of the light ray APPEARS longer. It IS NOT that the duration of the phenomenon is longer.

In reality, the lengthening of the physical phenomenon is fictitious; it is due to the combination of the physical movement of the train car, which "drags" the phenomenon, along with the firing of the beam MOUNTED ON THE CARRIAGE.

If we want to SEE the representation of the reality of the movement of the physical phenomenon of the reflection of the light ray, we can draw the following figure, which aims to move from the ideal to the real.

Figure 3

With this drawing, we intend to demonstrate that the speed at which the light ray propagates and the speed of the train car are completely independent.

In this fantasy world of thought experiments, we have drawn what an observer (O) fixed on the ground would SEE inside the train car. The train car moves relative to the observer, and the physical phenomenon of the reflection of a light ray in a mirror occurs.

Four positions of the train car's forward motion are presented. The first two positions represent the light ray traveling towards the mirror. The next two positions of the train car represent the reflection of the ray in the mirror and its movement towards the floor of the train car.

We can be represented as an observer outside the train car, and thus we can say that we ACTUALLY SEE the physical phenomenon. And this physical phenomenon does not depend on the movement of the train car.

This independence of motion allows us to state that the speed (v) of the train car can be any speed, even greater than the speed of light, while the speed of the light beam is equal to the speed (c) of light.

(NOTE: The path of the light beam if the train car were stationary is shown on the right (a). This is not a good example since it suggests that the phenomenon IS different when it has relative motion, and this disrupts the idea that it LOOKS different.)

WE BELIEVE THAT WITH THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS WE CAN SAY THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ATOMIC PARTICLES TO TRAVEL AT SPEEDS GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

THE DECEPTION OF THE MUON TEST AND THE SPEED OF ATOM PARTICLES

INTRODUCTION

We have recently read an author who still attempts to justify the validity of the fallacy of A. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" by presenting "the muon test."

In this essay, we will demonstrate that such a test is nothing more than a fallacy intended to lend credence to his beliefs.

Next, we provide some definitions to refresh the content of concepts we had already defined in previous essays.

WHAT IS A MUON?

A muon is a subatomic elementary particle that decays shortly after being produced.

HOW ARE MUONS PRODUCED?

Muons are produced naturally when cosmic rays, which contain them, collide with the Earth's atmosphere. Muons can also be produced in nuclear physics experiments in laboratories.

MUON BREAKDOWN TIME (tr). HEIGHT FROM WHICH THEY ARE PRODUCED AND TRAVEL TIME (td).

To perform our calculations, we compiled the following data.

It has been observed that a muon at rest, in the laboratory, in artificial mode, decays in an average time, which we will define as the Breakup Time (tr) = 2.2 microseconds.

The height from where they are produced to the ground surface is estimated to be approximately 50 km/s.

If we assume that a muon travels at the speed of light, or 300,000 km/s, which we will see later cannot be true, the travel time (td) until reaching the ground is calculated to be:

td = 50/(300,000) km/(km/s) = 0.0001666 sec. = 166 microseconds.

In the laboratory, a breakup time (tr) has been estimated to be equal to 2.2 microseconds before a muon decays.

Therefore:

With a td = 166 microseconds of travel to reach the Earth's surface, it would be impossible for them not to have disintegrated. They shouldn't exist, and yet they are.

The following figure is intended to represent the two forms of muon production.

With this reasoning, they admit that time dilates, that is, by adding more time, as if time were a material entity... and thus leaving more time for the muon to decay.

WE AFFIRM THAT MUONS TRAVEL AT A GREATER SPEED THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. TIME DOES NOT DILATE.

In the approach put forward by the followers of the Theory of Special Relativity, they use the speed of light as the muon's travel speed. Based on this erroneous concept, they have no choice but to resort to the fallacy that time dilates. Of course, this statement conceals another fallacy of A. Einstein's. In his book "On the Theory of Special and General Relativity," he gives a mathematical approach that leads to the error of trying to justify that the speed of light cannot be exceeded.

Some time ago, we published an essay on our blog entitled: "Theory of Relativity: It is possible for an atomic particle to travel faster than the speed of light." In this essay, we demonstrated this possibility mathematically. Now, we present this possibility empirically in a real-life scenario.

WE PROVE THAT THE MUON TRAVELS AT A SPEED GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

We argue that on the journey from the collision with the atmosphere to the Earth's surface, it's not that time dilates, but that muons, as atomic particles, travel faster than the speed of light.

If we propose a proposal in which we demonstrate that a muon can travel faster than the speed of light, we can rule out the fallacy that time dilates.

In this demonstration, we will carry out the following two steps:

1. Express the speed of light in microseconds

2. Determine the speed of a muon in microseconds

By evaluating these concepts in the same unit of measurement, comparisons can be made between them.

1.- EXPRESSION OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN MICROSECONDS: µs

Remember that we represent a microsecond as µs, and that it is equivalent to: (1 / 1,000,000) seconds.

We will take the following unit of measurement: µs

The speed of light is represented by (c)

To measure seconds in microseconds, we take the dimension µs as the unit of measurement.

c=300,000 km/sec×(1 sec)/µs=(300,000)/(1,000,000) km/µs=0.3 km/µs

2.- DETERMINE THE SPEED OF A MUON IN MICROSECONDS

We ask ourselves, what speed must muons have to arrive from an altitude of 50 km above the ground without disintegrating?

To answer this question, we proceed as follows:

Identifying the speed of the muon as (Vm); the distance traveled as (e); and the time taken as (t), we apply

the formula: Vm = e/t

We observe that the value of (Vm) is determined by two variables. The value of the Space variable (e) is known: 50 km. To determine the value of time (t), we will rely on the data provided in the laboratory.

In the laboratory, for the entire muon to arrive, the maximum travel time is: (td) = 2.20 µs. We will take this duration of NOT decaying as the time the muon is traveling.

Thus, we have:

Observe the difference in speed obtained with respect to the speed of light. We believe this is the reason why muons reach the ground without decaying.

FALLACIES IN THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

To conclude this essay, we would like to highlight some of the fallacies that appear in the Theory of Relativity.

We have just analyzed one of these fallacies. We can call it the "muon decay time" fallacy. In truth, this is not a fallacy presented to us directly by the aforementioned physicist. Rather, it is indirectly constructed by "believers" and followers of that theory in order to justify it. However, in the aforementioned theory, we can mention fallacies created and supported by the aforementioned physicist. You can find them summarized in our "little book," published by Amazon, entitled: "The Errors of A. Einstein. A Brief Summary." We briefly comment on these fallacies: When discussing "The Simultaneity of Relativity," he comes to an erroneous conclusion by saying that:

"The time required for a process relative to the wagon cannot be equated with the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment".

"We ask ourselves: Do you really believe that matter and biological processes are transformed...?"

To this statement, we ironically reply that he is preaching "the miracle of transmutation." This is one of the fallacies.

Another fallacy, also discussed in the aforementioned "little book," is that of the "deformation of space." Through false arguments, the aforementioned physicist attempts to justify the attraction between two masses, not because of a force we call "gravity," but because space is deformed. We jokingly wonder why the supporters of the theory of relativity, when performing the muon test, instead of saying that time dilated, did not argue the nonsense. that space is deformed...

We see that followers of this theory claim that:

Time dilates; space is distorted; processes are modified… What else can be changed?

In this type of "science," one fallacy supports another.

We believe that to justify the presence of such nonsense, we must recall what we have already stated in one of our essays: "the verb SEE was confused with the verb BE."

(NOTE: We draw our readers' attention to an explanation found on Google that may cause confusion. This platform states the following:

“A muon travels at speeds very close to the speed of light, generally around 0.998c. This high speed is key to their detection at the Earth's surface, despite having a very short half-life at rest (approximately 2.2 microseconds).”

The reader will observe that this statement is incorrect or, at the very least, contradicts those who use the muon test as a thesis to justify “time dilation.” Recall that these same people claim that: “due to the time it takes them to travel 50 km, they shouldn't reach the Earth's surface”.

We, contrary to the previous assertion, have shown that the speed of a muon exceeds the speed of light, and this premise allows us to admit that muons do reach the Earth's surface.

A. EINSTEIN'S CONTRADICTIONS – THE FALSE USE OF THE VERBS "SEE" AND "BE"

1. REASON FOR PUBLISHING THIS ESSAY

In our "little book" entitled "A. Einstein's Errors – A Brief Summary," we stated that this physicist's error was confusing the use of the verb "SEE" with the verb "BE" in the thought experiments he proposed to justify his theory.

It is possible that the validity of our statement, perhaps somewhat gratuitous, was doubted. In an attempt to be somewhat pedagogical on this subject and to convince our readers of this assertion, this is the reason why we present this essay.

 

2.- THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY

In A. Einstein's book entitled "On the Theory of Special and General Relativity," on page 18 (Ediciones Altaya S.A.), he cites the following as the Principle of Relativity:

"If (k´) is a coordinate system that moves uniformly and without rotation with respect to (K), then natural phenomena occur with respect to (K´) according to the same general laws as with respect to (K)."

To be consistent in our study, this is the principle we will use as a guideline for our critique.

 

3.- OBSERVER POSITIONING IN THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS PRESENTED BY A. EINSTEIN

Thought experiments should allow us, as observers, to deduce the validity of the result to be obtained. If not, what would be the purpose of the thought experiment?

Following this criterion, in the drawings with which we intend to capture A. Einstein's thought experiments, we will position ourselves as the observer, with this figure appearing in the corresponding drawing.

Through the following drawings, we will see that:

IF A. EINSTEIN DOESN'T SAY THAT THEY LOOK DIFFERENT, AND SAYS THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT, IT CONTRADICTS THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, WHICH REQUIRES THEY BE EQUAL.

Below, we reproduce the thought experiments mentioned in the aforementioned book by A. Einstein in which the observer shown in the drawing (Fixed Reference System (K)) is ourselves.

 

1.- REFLECTION OF A RAY OF LIGHT IN THE MIRROR OF A MOBILE CAR

Time LOOKS different

2.- DISTANCE MEASURING BAR

The length LOOKS different

3.- THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY

We, as observers, SEE that the flashes of the two rays do not reach the person riding in the carriage simultaneously. But they are simultaneous for us.

 

4.- TRANSFORMING THE VISION OF THE EXTENSION OF AN EVENT

We must note that in this case, it is the observer who moves (SRM), while the event occurred in a fixed location. Furthermore, we see the extent of the event transformed, not because the translational motion or velocity (v) has transformed it, but because the field of view has been deformed due to distance.

 

4.- OUR DISTINCTION IN THE USE OF THE VERBS "SEE" AND "BE"

If, as we indicated in the previous section, we are the ones who stand at the observation point (SRF) in the drawings, to be consistent with the Principle of Relativity, we must say that we SEE phenomena differently, but that they ARE NOT different. This is the error Einstein makes, contradicting himself, going so far as to state in his book that we take the following as a reference:

"The time required for a process relative to the wagon cannot be equated with the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment."

If we accept this contradiction imposed by Einstein as correct, we must ironically say that the "miracle of transmutation" occurs.

In our essay on the Lorentz Transformation Formulas, Einstein's error in accepting the verb "TO BE" as valid instead of the verb "TO SEE" is most clearly evident. In our study, we demonstrate that it is: "The transformation of the vision of the extension of an event." These formulas measure the extension of an event not because it has been transformed due to movement, but because the field of vision has been modified due to distance.

5.- GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY. THE SAME ERROR AS IN THE SPECIAL THEORY.

In the so-called general theory of relativity, we can highlight the same confusion between the application of the verbs "SEE" and "BE."

Recall that to demonstrate the validity of this theory, Einstein used the thought experiment of the elevator. We will draw this thought experiment, posing as observers. We will be the Fixed Reference System (FRS).

Reasoning in the same way we did previously when considering the theory of special relativity, we say the following:

We translate SEEING as noticing the "trick" of the rope pulling the elevator at an accelerated speed (∆v).

The IS NOT refers to the elevator pulling the traveler's body and IS NOT a gravitational field that produces compression on their feet.

As the reader can see, this is another way of arguing the invalidity of the aforementioned thought experiment, in addition to what we explained in our aforementioned "booklet."