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)