TENTH DELIVERY

THEORY OF RELATIVITY.- CRITICISM OF A NONSENSE  ANALYZED IN SEVEN FASCICLES

 

We continue with the series of deliveries, a summary of the book entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of a nonsense analyzed in seven fascicles ", edited by AMAZON

 

                  THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE

                                        WHAT MISTAKE DOES IT MAKE?

 

Confuse two different types of force

It confuses the container (the elevator) with the content (the masses)

Commits a fallacy of logical atinence ("ad hominen")

 

                  THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE

   It confuses the type and application of the forces that intervene in the phenomenon

Contact Forces and Attraction Forces

         

                

                  THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE

                                     A CONFUSION OF IDEAS

We must treat it as a similarity between experiments, and not as an equivalence of effects that have been caused by different causes (Different types of Forces).

The thought experiment begins by considering that an ATTRACTION force, such as the force of gravity (G), acts both on the CONTAINER and on the CONTENT (the Masses). Thus, physical phenomena related to MASS can occur.

The PULL force cannot be equated to a PULL force ON the CONTAINER. The TRACTION force acts only on the CONTAINER (on the elevator casing) NOT on the CONTENT, which are the MASSES inside it.

 

                        THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE

 CRITICISM THE CONCEPTS USED IN YOUR MENTAL EXPERIMENT

To unmask this false comparison we say: IT IS NOT THE MASS "THAT" FALLS "IT IS THE SOIL THAT" RISES "

             

In the book that we take as a reference he tries to support the validity of his thought experiment with the following sentence:

“… Take good note that the possibility of this interpretation rests on the fundamental property that the gravitational field possesses of communicating the same acceleration to all bodies, or what amounts to the same thing, in the postulate of equality between inertial mass. and gravitational mass ... "

               THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE

                      A FALLACY OF LOGICAL ATINENCE

With this tangle of concepts he tries to justify the unjustifiable.

We can propose a syllogism in which the premises are not related to the conclusion.

We too can commit a fallacy of the "ad hominen" type if we believe the validity of the thought experiment because of who is the person who proposes it.

 (Intellectual Property Registry: B-767-20)

 

End of our deliveries

We repeat what we already said in the First Delivery. In our book entitled: "Theory of Relativity.- Criticism of a nonsense analyzed in seven installments", edited by AMAZON, you will be able to read the following topics:

Fascicle 3.- Criticism of the conclusions of the essays that have tried to give the reason to the fallacy of time dilation.

Fascicle 4.- Where does it seem that the idea of presenting the First Premise that A. Einstein formulated in his book came from?

Fascicle 5.- An erroneous interpretation of the “enigmatic” Lorentz Factor.

 

 

 

NINTH DELIVERY

THEORY OF RELATIVITY.- CRITICISM OF A NONSENSE  ANALYZED IN SEVEN FASCICLES

 

We continue with the series of deliveries, a summary of the book entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of a nonsense analyzed in seven fascicles ", edited by AMAZON

 

                   THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE

                    MENTAL EXPERIMENT ON WHICH IT IS BASED

We transcribe the text that leads to the fallacy of the Principle of Equivalence:

"Imagine a large piece of empty space, so far from stars and large masses that we can say with sufficient certainty that we are dealing with the case envisaged in Galileo's fundamental law.

As a reference body we imagine a large box in the shape of a room, and we assume that there is an observer Equipped with devices for it, naturally there is no gravity. It has to be secured with ropes to the floor, under penalty of being thrown to the ceiling at the slightest hit against the ground

Suppose that in the center of the ceiling of the drawer, outside, there is a hook with a rope, and that a being, of which we are indifferent, begins to pull it with a constant force. The box, together with the observer, begins to fly "up" with a uniformly accelerated motion. Your speed will increase over time ... always great heights to judge everyone from another body of reference that does not pull a rope

But how does the man in the drawer judge the process? The floor of the box transmits the acceleration pressure to the feet. Therefore, he must counteract this pressure with the help of his legs if he does not want to measure the ground with his body.

Then, he will be standing in the drawer like a person in any room of a dwelling. If you let go of a body that was previously in your hand, the acceleration of the drawer will stop acting on it, so it will approach the ground with an accelerated relative movement. ”.

The observer is also convinced that the acceleration of the body with respect to the ground is always the same regardless of the body that performs the experiment. On the basis of his knowledge of the gravitational field, the man will conclude that he is, together with the box, within a fairly constant gravitational field.

For a moment, he will be surprised, however, that the drawer does not fall into this gravitational field, but then he discovers the hook in the center of the ceiling and the tight rope attached to it and correctly infer that the drawer hangs at rest. in that field

Is it lawful to laugh at man and say that his conception is a mistake? I think that if we want to be conscious, we cannot do it, but we must admit that his explanation does not attack reason or known mechanical laws. Even if the box is accelerated with respect to Galileo's space considered first, it is possible to contemplate it as immobile "

 

The text of the thought experiment cited by A. Einstein, ends with the following sentence:

"So we have good reason to extend the principle of relativity to reference bodies that accelerate with respect to each other, thus a powerful argument has been made for a postulate of generalized relativity."

 

In future installments these criticisms will continue

(Intellectual Property Registry: B-767-20)

 

EIGHTH DELIVERY

THEORY OF RELATIVITY.- CRITICISM OF A NONSENSE  ANALYZED IN SEVEN FASCICLES

 

We continue with the series of deliveries, a summary of the book entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of a nonsense analyzed in seven fascicles ", edited by AMAZON

                 THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE

        WHAT DOES THIS PRINCIPLE INTEND TO DEMONSTRATE?

In order not to confuse the reader, we highlight the existence of two Principles that are announced in the aforementioned book by A. Einstein. One is the FIRST PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY and the other is the PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE.

We first transcribe the FIRST PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY:

"If a (MSR) moves with respect to a (FSR) then natural phenomena occur with respect to (MSR) according to the same general laws as with respect to (SRF)."

 Let us remember the drawing that we gave when exposing "a contradiction of criteria"

          

There it was said that if we consider two Inertial Reference Systems, the physical laws that are observed in the Fixed Reference System (SRF) are the same as those in the Mobile Reference System (SRM). And we put as an example: the parabolic shot and the law of the pendulum.

 NOW IT INTENDS that this First Principle is also fulfilled for NON-Inertial Reference Systems and, with this, it makes the fallacy of the PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE appear.

 

                     THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE

   WHAT JUSTIFICATION DOES THE PHYSICAL REFERRAL USE TO DECEIVE US WITH THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE?

He proposes a thought experiment, known as that of the "drawer" or the "elevator", in which a person IS inside and that on his ceiling there is a rope that pulls him up with a constant acceleration. This is how it justifies the existence of a Non-Inertial Movement.

                                       

This approach incurs three fallacies.

In future installments we will give the text of the thought experiment that A. Einstein exposes to validate the dalacia of the Equivalence Principle.

In future installments these criticisms will continue

(Intellectual Property Registry: B-767-20)

 

SEVENTH DELIVERY

THEORY OF RELATIVITY.- CRITICISM OF A NONSENSE  ANALYZED IN SEVEN FASCICLES

 

We continue with the series of deliveries, a summary of the book entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of a nonsense analyzed in seven fascicles ", edited by AMAZON

 

WHAT WRONG CONCLUSION CAN WE DRAW FROM THE OBSERVATION OF THE PREVIOUS FIGURE?

We have explained that the presence of the Earth deforms the Space that makes another Mass approach and "fall" on it

We ask ourselves: Can we "Materialize" Space and make BODIES navigate with it?

How should we interpret the case in which, for example, a Mass is so far from the Earth that the Force of Gravity does not act? Should we interpret that in this case the Space has been "unfolding" or "flattening"? ...

We think of the well-known idea that says: "Space is what remains of an empty room when its walls collapse." We must not give him material attributes

 

TWO MENTAL EXPERIMENTS THAT INVALIDATE THE IDEA OF SPACE DEFORMATION AS A CAUSE OF GRAVITY

We have designed two thought experiments in order to invalidate the idea that Space intervenes as a variable to be considered in the generation of Gravitational Forces. We will identify these approaches as:

1.- Mental experiment without the intervention of Space.

2.- Experiment with equal Spaces between the Acting Masses

We proceed to describe these thought experiments

We propose in our book to consider two thought experiments to invalidate the performance of "space" as one of the collaborators in the force of gravity.

  An experiment considers the trial without the intervention of space among the attractive masses

 

                   THE FALLACY OF SPACE DEFORMATION

           MENTAL EXPERIMENT WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF SPACE

The following figure represents the Earth and on its ground a mass attached to it. The question is: If there is no "Space" there is no force of attraction? ... Because it is an obvious demonstration and because of the reasoning that we expose in our book we must answer that there is a force of attraction.

Without worrying about the scale of the values ​​of its dimensions, we have drawn a large Mass that may correspond to the globe (MT) and, practically on top of it, another small mass, which could be, for example, a stone (mp)

                                   

                         THE FALLACY OF SPACE DEFORMATION

   MENTAL EXPERIMENT WITH EQUAL SPACE AMONG ACTUATING MASSES

We use a second thought experiment to criticize the space warping fallacy.

Two different masses at the same distance. It is interesting that we bear in mind that the ACCELERATION with which both Masses are subjected is the same, but they are subjected to different Attracting Forces (Fa).

                             

In the book "Theory of relativity.- A false theory" we expose the ideal example of two masses: A battle tank and a stone that fall from the same distance and we give the weights of each mass, and we calculate that their Forces of Attraction They are different. Therefore, it is not space that intervenes since we suppose them at the same distance from the Attractor Mass. It is clear that what we are analyzing are the Forces and not the acceleration they acquire. This is the same because its Mass intervenes in it.

 

In future installments these criticisms will continue

 (Intellectual Property Registry: B-767-20)

 

SIXTH DELIVERY

THEORY OF RELATIVITY.- CRITICISM OF A NONSENSE  ANALYZED IN SEVEN FASCICLES

 

We continue with the series of deliveries, a summary of the book entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of a nonsense analyzed in seven fascicles ", edited by AMAZON

                 THE FALLACY OF THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE

         AN EXPLANATION THAT DOES NOT SATISFY:

To try to explain what we really do not know or understand, it seems that we assume to accept approaches that go against reason and common sense.

They say that the presence of the Earth warps Space and causes another handle to approach and "fall" on it. Figure 1 is intended to signify this phenomen

                                                                 

We will try to give our opinion on the invalidity of the arguments that state that: the FORCE OF GRAVITY associated with a MASS is caused by the deformation of the space adjacent to it. To go from the real world to the world of fantasy, we only needed to support the fallacy of the "Time Dilation" in the fallacy of the "Deformation of space.

                               ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Ignoring in principle the CAUSES that produce such an EFFECT, that is, the Force of Attraction (Fa), we will begin by making an analysis of these EFFECTS.

 Using logical reasoning to be able to consider the idea of ​​the "deformation of space" as a fallacy, we will analyze the VARIABLES that intervene in the physical phenomenon of the Forces of Attraction between Masses. For this we will use Newton's law:

                                      (Fa) = G x (M x m) / d2

Where (Fa) is the attractive force that exists between two masses (M) and (m) separated by a distance (d) and in which (G) is a constant value, called the Universal Constant of Gravitation.

WHAT INFORMATION DOES THE NEWTON LAW GIVE US?

The aforementioned Newton's law informs us of the way of valuing and of the way of acting of the Masses that intervene with respect to the Attraction Force (Fa) that appears between them. Newton informs us that a force field appears between the Masses, but does not inform us why it is generated. This is where the "mental fantasies" appear to try to explain what is unknown.

However, this law gives us arguments to refute the fantasy of the deformation of space.

ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS INTERVENING IN THE PHENOMENON

To try that in our research we do not go against common sense, we suggest carrying out an analysis by performing the following three steps:

1.- A Physical Phenomenon takes place between two known AUTHORS who intervene in the phenomenon. We call them Masses: (M1) and (M2)

2.- We define a platform alien to the variables of the phenomenon. We identify it as: SPACE.

3.- There must be a NEXUS between the two authors, the Masses, that makes them interact with each other. This NEXO is the variable that we do not know and that we have our doubts to identify.

Perhaps they are the Neutrinos that, moving through all the outer space and crossing all the masses, establish the nexus between two Masses? ... We leave it to the consideration, analysis, criticism and investigation of the experts in Atomic Physics.

WHAT HAS THE PREVIOUS ANALYSIS SERVED US FOR?

These three points help us define the following:

We separate the “actors” that intervene in the physical phenomenon, from the support or platform on which it is carried out.

Using the metaphor we will say that:

The stage in which the function takes place is SPACE. The actors are the MASSES. Their dialogue between them is their NEXUS.

 

In future installments these criticisms will continue

 (Intellectual Property Registry: B-767-20)

 

FIFTH DELIVERY

 

THEORY OF RELATIVITY.- CRITICISM OF A NONSENSE  ANALYZED IN SEVEN FASCICLES

 

We continue with the series of deliveries, a summary of the book entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of a nonsense analyzed in seven fascicles ", edited by AMAZON

                       THE FALLACY OF DILATION OF THE MASS

                      THE ELONGATION OF THE MEASURING BAR

Paragraph 12 of the aforementioned book that we take as a reference is entitled: "THE BEHAVIOR OF MEASURING RULES AND MOBILE WATCHES"

It takes as a basis the thought experiment of the train car and, summarizing its content, tells us that: using a bar to measure lengths, this bar will be longer valued from the embankment, than it will be valued from the inside of the train car.

Another false interpretation. We clarify that instead of saying "IT WILL BE" longer, we must say: the longer "WE WILL SEE" if, standing still outside the wagon, we are observing it.

                            

         

              THE FALLACY OF THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY

On a page of the aforementioned book by A. Einstein it is mentioned:

 “Two events, for example, two rays that are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, are NOT with respect to the train and vice versa. Each reference body (coordinate systems) has its special time. A

temporal location only makes sense when the body of reference to which it refers is indicated. "

 

The logic error is that: IT IS A SINGLE PHENOMENON

We must consider that: THE EVENT IS THE SIMULTANEOUS APPEARANCE OF TWO RAYS

           

                   

In this same installment of our book entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of nonsense analyzed in seven installments" a criticism is made of the "mess" that appears in A. Einstein's book when trying to justify the constancy of speed of the light.

 

In future installments these criticisms will continue

 (Intellectual Property Registry: B-767-20)

 

FOURTH DELIVERY

THEORY OF RELATIVITY.- CRITICISM OF A NONSENSE  ANALYZED IN SEVEN FASCICLES

We continue with the series of deliveries, a summary of the book entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of a nonsense analyzed in seven fascicles", edited by AMAZON

                               THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION

3.- CONSEQUENCES OF ADMITTING TIME DILATION AS VALID

    3.2.- THE PARADOX OF THE TWIN BROTHERS

We can admit that the TIME OF THE VISION OF OBSERVATION is lengthened, but the OWN TIME of the oscillation of the clock, the Tick-Tock, will be the same for the two Twin Brothers.

                         THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION

4.- WRONG CONSEQUENCES THAT APPEAR IN SOME BOOKS, BASED ON THE FALLACY OF THE FIRST PREMISE

The aforementioned books that present the Mind Experiment of the wagon train, calculate the relationship between (td) and (tp) and find the relationship:

Where (c) is the value of the speed of light and (v) the speed of a movable body. And since the denominator of the second member of the equality is less than one, hence they make the mistake of saying that: time(td), observed from outside the wagon, is greater than Time Own (tp) of the phenomenon investigated.

We cannot attribute these results to the same phenomenon and equate both results. If we do, an error of interpretation is made

 

                          THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION

                DESCRIPTION OF ERRORS IN THE FIRST PREMISE

Of interpretation: td is equal to (L) T_d  (TD=(L)T_d)   instead of considering that it is a value obtained in two different experiments

CONFUSE THE VISION OF THE PHENOMENON WITH THE OWN PHENOMENON AN ERROR OF LOGIC.- A CONTRADICTION IN THE THEORY

In future installments these criticisms will continue

(Intellectual Property Registry: B-767-20)

THIRD DELIVERY

THEORY OF RELATIVITY.- CRITICISM OF A NONSENSE  ANALYZED IN SEVEN FASCICLES

 

We continue with the series of deliveries, a summary of the book entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of a nonsense analyzed in seven fascicles", edited by AMAZON

                         THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION

3.- CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION AS VALID

       3.1.- TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOBILE WATCHES

In a paragraph of the aforementioned book that we take as a reference, he states:

 "The time difference in clocks with relative movements between them"

Another fallacy derived from the error of accepting the First Premise. In order not to "swallow" that matter is deformed and clocks mark different time, the "dilation of time" is assigned as the culprit.

(Note: We will see in another Fascicle: "A misinterpretation of atomic clocks") See the following

                                     Pendulum clock

                

                   

                                      Mechanical clock                   

                   

 

(In future installments these criticisms will continue)

 (Intellectual Property Registry: B-767-20)

SECOND DELIVERY

We continue with the series of deliveries, a summary of the book entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of a nonsense analyzed in seven fascicles", edited by AMAZON

 

RELATIVE MOVEMENTS

To make ourselves understood we need to comment  a little theory. We will briefly deal with Inertial Reference Systems (IRS)

Example:

Man on Earth = CANNOT observe that it moves

                              HE CAN watch the plane move

                      

We consider the Earth as a Fixed Reference System with respect to the plane.

 

INERTIAL REFERENCE SYSTEMS (IRS)

The denomination of Inertial Reference System (SRI) requires compliance with the following condition:

There is a Mobile Reference System (MRS) that must move with respect to a Fixed Reference System (FRS) with rectilinear and constant speed.

In the previous drawing, the man that is fixed on the Earth could be assigned as an (FRS) and the plane with respect to the man as an (MRS).

 but ... we could not suppose that they form an inertial Reference System unless the plane was moving with respect to man, in a straight line and with constant speed.

We then go on to expose a part of the content of the criticisms that we have exposed in our previous installment.

 

         THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION

           1.1.- A CONTRADICTION OF CRITERIA

In A. Einstein's book that we take as reference, in one part, that we take as First Premise, he says:

 "The time that a process takes in relation to the wagon cannot be equaled to the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment"

Elsewhere in the book he says:

“If a (MRS) moves with respect to a (FRS) then natural phenomena occur with respect to (MRS) according to the same general laws as with respect to (FRS)”

                   

The figure represents a man who is fixed on the ground (SRF) in which he experiences the physical phenomena of: the parabolic shot and the law of the pendulum. If we suppose that the train wagon is a (SRM) with respect to the (SRF) then the same laws will be fulfilled.This could be extended to sidereal space always assuming that an equal Attraction Force existed in the two Reference Systems, such as the gravity.

 

                              GENESIS OF NONSENSE

Observed the contradiction of criteria, we can also say that the First Premise that says: "the time that a process takes in relation to the wagon ..." we classify it as "THE GENESIS OF A NONSENSE"

 

                         THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION

1.2 LOGICAL REASONING ON THE INVALIDITY OF THE FIRST PREMISE

We define a PROCESS as:

The occurrence of two or more Events linked to each other and keeping a certain sequence in their realization that requires a certain execution time

When mentioning in the First Premise "the time required by a process" this time is INHERENT to the process. It will serve to identify it and we will call it Time of the Process (tp). And it cannot have another when contemplating it from different positions of the outer space -. Two different Own Times involve two different Processes.

 

                  THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION

2.- ARGUMENTS THAT GO AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE MENTAL EXPERIMENT OF THE TRAIN CAR

These are TWO physical phenomena executed at the same time, and not

the experiment should be considered as a single physical phenomenon

The displacement time (td) of the VISION IMAGE of the MOVEMENT of the phenomenon is confused with the proper time (tp) of the phenomenon

            

The Proper Time (tp) of the phenomenon is the one represented in the drawing on the left, with the wagon without movement.

It is logical to assume that the person on the embankment takes longer to SEE the extent of the development of the phenomenon.

 

In future installments these criticisms will continue

(Intellectual Property Registry: B-767-20)

FIRST DELIVERY - PRESENTATION

THEORY OF RELATIVITY.- CRITICISM OF A NONSENSE  ANALYZED IN SEVEN FASCICLES

We begin a series of installments that, each one of them, will be a summary of the book by the same author of this blog, entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Critique of a nonsense analyzed in seven installments" and edited by AMAZON.

                                        PRESENTATION

We take as reference the sentences written in the book of

Einstein called “On the theory of special and general relativity.

If we go to the source of information, they cannot accuse us of misrepresenting the concepts.

The content of this review includes several essays by the same author of this book, validated and published in the scientific journal: "International Journal Fundamental Physics Sciencies" "(IJFPS) and other essays published for more than ten years in the online publication" monographies.com "

We present this criticism, grouped in fascicles on the same subject. This approach leads us to a breakdown of ideas on the same topic that allows us to separately detect the fallacies in which the aforementioned theory concurs and that without their breakdown seem to support each other to lead us to error.

We will summarize the criticism of the following fallacies:

THE DILATION OF TIME

THE ERROR OF WANTING TO INCLUDE SIMULTANEOUS PHENOMENA WITHIN RELATIVITY

THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE

THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE

We expand the justification of this criticism in our referred book. In it, and in other fascicles, we also talk about the following topics: “The Lorentz Factor”; "Criticism of the conclusions of the essays that have tried to give the reason to the fallacy of the Dilation of Time"; “Where does the wrong idea seem to come from, the premise that

 A. Einstein formulates in his book? "

 

               THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION.-

            THE PARADOX OF THE TWIN BROTHERS

• In this study we will see where the error occurs when we want to admit as real the science fiction story known as the "twin brothers"

• In it it is said that in two brothers who are twins, one is an astronaut and undertakes a journey in outer space at a speed close to that of light. Upon returning to Earth, there is an age difference between the two brothers

                            

       

                     THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION

                    FIRST PREMISE.- GENESIS OF NONSENSE

In the statement that appears in the aforementioned Einstein book is where the deformation of concepts that lead to fantasies that generate the fallacies of the dilation of time and Mass is generated.

FIRST PREMISE:

"The time that a process takes in relation to the wagon cannot be equaled to the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment "

 

INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST PREMISE.- MENTAL EXPERIMENT OF THE TRAIN CAR

Some books interpret the above statement by means of the

following drawing:

 

          

A mirror is glued to the roof of the wagon. Inside the wagon there is a person who throws a ray of light towards the mirror, and waits for the reflection of it. Outside the wagon, fixed on the ground, there is an observer of this ray of light.

The physical phenomenon of the reflection of light, the referred books identify it with the PROCESS of which A. Einstein speaks in his First Premise. And from this they deduce that the time of the process is different for the person who is inside the car than the one who is outside.

 

                        THE FALLACY OF TIME DILATION

ARGUMENTS WE EXPOSE AGAINST THE "FIRST PREMISE"

1.- Arguments that go directly against the First

      Premise

      1.- A contradiction of criteria.

      2.-Logical reasoning about the invalidity of the First

          Premise

2.- Arguments that go against the validity of the

      Train car thought experiment.

3.- Consequences of accepting as valid the fallacy of

      Time dilation.

            1.- Time difference between mobile watches

            2.- The paradox of the Twin Brothers.

 4.- Wrong consequences that appear in some books,

       relying on the fallacy of the First Premise

 

In future installments we will give a summary of all these criticisms

(Intellectual Property Registry: B-767-20)