THE REUNION THEORY

THE REUNION THEORY – The expression E=mc² tells us that, in the distant past, there were several explosions that propelled atoms outward from a common environment.

 

INTRODUCTION

Some years ago, we published an essay titled: “The expression E=mc² tells us that, in the distant past, there were several explosions that propelled atoms outward from a common environment.” As the reader may notice, the phrase “The Reunion Theory” was missing from that title.

Although that essay touched upon the subject of our “Reunion Theory,” its significant role within the study’s thesis remained rather unclear. A reader’s questions of interpretation brought this shortcoming to our attention. For this reason, we have presented this new essay, aiming to approach the subject in as pedagogical a manner as possible.

 

THE REUNION THEORY

 

We have termed our analysis the “REUNION THEORY.” It examines the associations and links that must exist between the physical variables involved in the following process: an explosion, the journey of an atom, and the final manifestation of energy, as expressed by the equation E=mc².

For instance, we associate the variable “force” with the mass (m) upon which it acts, and with the acceleration (a) that it imparts to that mass. It should be understood that we are discussing “associations,” not “quantitative evaluations.”

The Reunion Theory will help us decipher how a single variable, such as the speed of light (c), can recur and appear as a squared term within the same expression.

 

EQUIVALENCES AND TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE REUNION THEORY

Throughout the journey of an atom, from the distant past to the

present day, we shall identify the interactions occurring between the relevant variables as follows:

EQUIVALENCE RELATIONSHIPS:

We define as EQUIVALENT those concepts that describe the same PHYSICAL QUALITY or situation.To clarify, consider the following examples:

VELOCITY: Within this concept, the VELOCITY (v) of a body's mass and the VELOCITY (c) of light are considered EQUIVALENT.

ENERGY: Within this concept, potential ENERGY and kinetic ENERGY are considered EQUIVALENT.

SPACE: In the context of stellar distances, the speed of light (c) is used as a unit of measurement for space. Thus, we can establish an EQUIVALENCE between a spatial distance (e) and the speed of light (c).

 

THE CONCEPT OF TRANSFORMATION

Alongside the concept of EQUIVALENCE, we must also consider the concept of TRANSFORMATION, which occurs between physical variables.

In a TRANSFORMATION, one physical variable acts as the cause of another—that is, we are dealing with a cause-and-effect relationship, which is NOT the case for EQUIVALENCE.

As an example, consider POTENTIAL ENERGY (Ep) and the physical concept of WORK (T). We can express this as follows:

 

This demonstrates a capacity for transformation; we recognize this as a transformation.

Another transformation occurring between physical variables—perhaps more difficult to discern because it requires a specific type of reasoning—is as follows:

We define the variable Force (F) as: F = m.a

where (m) is the mass variable and (a) is the acceleration variable.

However, we can also TRANSFORM it into:

 F = m·c

where (c) is the speed of light.

This assertion requires further justification on our part:

Acceleration (a) is expressed as: a = ∂v/∂t, where (v) is the velocity acquired by the atom due to the action of force (F),

where (t) is the elapsed time.

Furthermore, we know that the variation in velocity (v) resulting from that force can be described by the formula:

                                                 

where (v) is the final velocity intended to be reached during time (t), between the initial (i) and final (f) points of application of the aforementioned force. We must also assume that this time interval was infinitesimal.

However… we must bear in mind THAT THE FINAL POINT (F) IS LOCATED AT THE POSITION WHERE (V) REACHES THE SPEED OF LIGHT (c), as this is THE LIMITING VALUE FOR VELOCITIES. Therefore, the acceleration between the initial point (i) and the final point (f)—that is, the increase in velocity between (i) and (f)—is limited by the speed of light.

                                      

In other words, the limit to this increase in velocity is the speed of light (c). Thus, the acceleration (a) of the mass (m) is constrained.

Therefore, we can consider that the aforementioned primordial FORCE (F), which acted infinitesimally upon the particle, CAUSED ITS MASS TO TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT (C).

F = mc

We can also interpret this change as a TRANSFORMATION.

  

SYMBOLISM FOR USE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE “REUNION THEORY”

This symbolism is well-suited for representing the connections among variables—even a variable’s connection to itself, as in the case of the speed of light (c), which can be expressed as: (

If we wish to assess its impact, we would consider the value (c).

In the theory under discussion, it should be noted that we refer to the physical variables involved in an atom’s movement in terms of "actions" rather than mere quantities. In an empirical analysis—or an experimental trial—we can observe the specific contribution of each variable.

For instance, the variable Force (F) is expressed as:

F = m · a

In our symbolic language, we apply the following notation:

 

 

Through this symbolism, we indicate that the UNION (∪) of the variable mass (m) and the variable acceleration (a) constitutes the resulting variable, Force (F). Similarly, we can symbolically represent the variable Work (T) as the UNION (∪) of a Force and a distance (e).

      

                                

In other words, we have moved from POTENTIAL ENERGY to WORK, and now we move from WORK to the EXPRESSION OF ITS COMPONENTS.

The work (T)—which, according to the aforementioned expression, THE ATOM IS CAPABLE OF PROVIDING—IS STORED WITHIN THE ATOM, RECORDED AS THE COMBINATION OF THE PRIMORDIAL FORCE (F) WE DISCUSSED AND THE DISTANCE (E) TRAVERSED BY THE MASS DURING THE EVENTS IN QUESTION.

Let us recall that, at the scale of physical units we are considering, distances are measured in units of LIGHT-SPEED (UVL); thus, the particle in question, propelled by the force (F), reached a speed equal to the speed of light (c).

By expressing the distance (e) in units of light-speed (uvl), we can establish the EQUIVALENCE:

 

Therefore, we can write:

                                          

Here, (c) represents space measured in light units.

To demonstrate that the expression  represents POTENTIAL ENERGY, we propose the following reasoning:

As we have:  and as we have obtained

The result is:

What is the expression we were investigating?

  

HOW CAN THE EQUALITY REPRESENTED BY THE EXPRESSION E=mc² BE THEORETICALLY JUSTIFIED?

We know that this expression has already been empirically demonstrated; therefore, we accept its validity.The task that remains is to justify its validity from a theoretical perspective.

To this end, we will draw upon our “Reunion Theory,” utilizing the symbolism established for its variables. We need only examine the expression of the aforementioned formula, in symbolic form, which we derived in the preceding paragraph while highlighting the grouping of the two variables involved.

 

                       FORCE   SPACE

 

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.”