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)