GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY. A STORY OF SCIENCE FICTION

PRESENTATION

The Theory of General Relativity introduces the idea of validating the possibility that relative movements between bodies can be carried out at accelerated speeds. In this essay we will demostrate that this idea can be classified as science fiction. We could say that he exposes an absurd argument as long as the Theory “comes out”. We will show that this argument that is called the Equivalence Principle is a fallacy.

To carry out our criticism we have used the book by A. Einstein entitled: "On the theory of special and general relativity" (Ediciones Altaya S.A. February 1999). The transcriptions we make of this book are written in quotation marks and italics.

In the last paragraph of this study (Paragraph 9) we have transcribed from the aforementioned book the mental experiment of the "elevator", which A. Einstein uses to validate the Principle of Equivalence, the basis of the Theory of General Relativity. We suggest the reader to read it before starting the reading of this essay.

 

1.- A CRITERION FOR ELIMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF ACCELERATED SPEEDS IN RELATIVE MOVEMENTS

In our critique of the elevator thought experiment, we rely on the following elimination criteria:

Planet Earth travels in outer space at a CONSTANT speed of 30 km/sec. In this way all bodies and natural phenomena travel along with it at this speed. We ask ourselves: What would happen if the Earth did not travel at a constant speed, but rather its speed was accelerated? We can already imagine that the bodies that are "on top" of it would slide on it, circling around this planet.

By comparison to the aforementioned example, we cannot admit that, in the mental experiment of the elevator, he proposes accelerated movements of a "CONTAINER", or we will also call it a "PLATFORM", taking for granted natural phenomena, their masses and their laws, which are the CONTENT of this PLATFORM. In conclusion, the application of accelerated velocities to the Theory of Relativity is NONNESS!

In the next paragraphs we will talk about the PLATFORMS and their CONTENTS and also the error, by the author of the aforementioned book, of making the equivalence of results between the accelerated speed of a PLATFORM and a gravitational field, thus believing that its effects fulfill the same purpose. 

 

2.- A CONTRADITION OF CRITERIA

On page 18 of the aforementioned book is written what is called 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. “

Note, the reader, that this Principle is referring to uniform speeds, but we believe that if the author of the book expands his theory considering accelerated speeds, he will have to demonstrate that the aforementioned Principle continues to be fulfilled, which, in accordance with what was stated in the previous paragraph, this does not happen. This is the CONTRADICTION that we highlight in the title of this paragraph.

 

3.- PLATFORMS AND CONTENTS

In some essays that we have criticized topics of the Theory of Relativity, we have used Mathematics to develop our study. In this study we rely on Physics. This is true since the author of the mental experiment uses terms that must be refuted using physical means.

Since in the mental experiment that A. Einstein uses to justify the "postulate of general relativity" he uses a drawer or an elevator, the first thing we are going to comment on is the CONTAINER and the CONTENT that the aforementioned experiment uses. The CONTAINER would be the elevator and the CONTENT would be the Masses that it contains. But, to make our study more general, we will call the Container "PLATFORM". With this denomination we want to convey the idea that there are CONTENTS inside or on top of it. For example, the "elevator" of the mental experiment is a PLATFORM because inside it is mentioned that it has CONTENTS and, also, we can consider the planet Earth as a PLATFORM because "above" it there are CONTENTS. Understanding the meaning of the word PLATFORM, in the following paragraphs we will use the word PLATFORM instead of CONTAINER.

The following figure is intended to mean two PLATFORMS that have CONTENTS

                                                  Fig 1

   
On the left side of the drawing, the "elevator" mentioned in the aforementioned mental experiment has been represented as a PLATFORM. The Masses that are drawn, the CONTENT, are inside the PLATFORM.

The right part of the drawing is intended to signify a portion of the planet Earth. In this case the PLATFORM is the Earth. The Masses, the CONTENT, is on its surface.

On both PLATFORMS their CONTENTS travel with them at the same speed.

We repeat the postulate that we have transcribed in the previous paragraph:

"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 better interpret this postulate, we say the following: The coordinate system (K`) is also called: Mobile Reference System (SRM), and we interpret it as a PLATFORM that moves in outer space. Within it their CONTENTS occur or are stored. These contents are the natural phenomena that develop according to their physical laws.

The coordinate system (K), we call it Fixed Reference System (SRF). It is also a PLATFORM. It is an observation PLATFORM and, in this case, immobile with respect to the (SRM). This Platform is dedicated to the observation of the CONTENT of everything that it contains and occurs in the (SRM) and is the position or point of reference of the (SRM).

Only as a complement we can add the following. In the book that we take as a reference, on pages 55 and 56 he mentions:

“The principle of physical relativity”

What does it say:

"...when it is simply a question of verifying or describing the movement, it is theoretically indifferent to which reference body the movement refers to."

That is, we can take (k´) as the Moving Reference System (SRM) with respect to (K), or this (K) as the Moving Reference System with respect to (K´).

 

4.- CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PLATFORM AND THE CONTENT IN A REAL CASE.- A SCIENCE FICTION PLATFORM

Below we do an analysis of a PLATFORM that moves in outer space at an accelerated speed. We will consider as if it were a real case. Consequently, we do not consider the existence of “the rope” that A. Einstein tells us about in his “science fiction” mental experiment. In this real approach, we must take into account the following points:

1.- It is in the PLATFORMS where the type of speed is identified. In the case that we are studying, it is an accelerated speed.

  2.- What is inside the PLATFORMS moves at its speed. It is part of the whole. We cite as an example that everything on Earth moves with it.

3.- In the absence of acting forces, in outer space a Mass is either stationary or has a constant speed with respect to a Fixed Reference System (SRF), (Galileo's Principle)

Consequently:

4.- In a “real” case, NOT science fiction, we cannot imagine the so-called PLATFORM floating in outer space, acquiring speed increments by itself. What A. Einstein paints with his "rope" in the thought experiment is science fiction.

ON THE OTHER HAND

5.- We consider the mass as a CONTENT

6 .- In what refers to the CONTENT, as we will see below, what A. Einstein calls "Inertial Mass", is nothing more than a mass subjected to the action of the "Mechanical Impulse"

7.- If the generation of the inertial mass is caused by the PLATFORM, we cannot validate compliance with the laws of nature. This is the case of the invalidity of the First Principle (Example of the planet Earth)

8.- The CONTENT can indeed generate an inertial Mass.

Let's talk a little about the "entities" capable of moving on Earth. For example: living beings, a car...

We can consider a chain of relative movements. For example, a car is a CONTENT on Earth. But Due to its ability to move by a Mechanical Impulse we can consider it as a PLATFORM for its passengers, who are at the same time the Mass or CONTENT and this car in its braking can generate an Inertial Mass.

 

5- THE SO-CALLED INERTIAL MASS AS A RESULT OF THE ACTION OF THE MECHANICAL IMPULSE

We consider Forces as active agents that act on a passive agent that we call Mass.

We remember that according to Mechanical Physics, the expression of the "Mechanical Impulse" is: IM=F×t , where (F) is the force that acts on a mass and (t) the time in which this force acts.

We can apply this principle both to the mental experiment in which the train car is used, and the one in which the elevator is used.

First of all we will use the example of the train wagon.

The following drawing represents a train wagon, the PLATFORM, in which as CONTENT it carries a mass (m). The wagon is slowing down. Its decrease in speed is represented by: -∆(v)

        

This decrease in speed is caused by a FORCE (F) that is acting for a certain time (t) braking the wheels. That is, through the action of a MECHANICAL IMPULSE

The Mechanical Impulse is the CAUSE whose EFFECT is that the mass (m) moves from the rear of the wagon to the front of it. As we have already commented, the mass (m) behaves as a passive factor and the force as an active factor.

We could do the same approach in the event that the wagon accelerated its march. In this case, the mass (m) would move towards the rear wall of the wagon and we could continue considering that the so-called “inertial mass” is the behavior of the mass as a consequence of the Mechanical Impulse. It is not a question, as A. Einstein seems to misunderstand, “that has been transformed” into “inertial mass”. It is always the same entity.

As we explained at the beginning of this essay, the accelerated speeds are not valid for us to attribute them to relative movements: "The masses on Earth do not move on it"

 

6.- THE CONCEPT OF MASS IS UNIQUE. IS AN ENTITY

The author of the book that we are taking as a reference dedicates a lot of attention to establishing a distinction in the concept "Mass". He makes a first distinction by calling it Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass, and this could be interpreted as two different entities. But, at the end of “dizzy the partridge”, he says:

"The same quality of the body manifests itself as inertia or as gravity" .

We say that it is a MANIFESTATION of the MASS when a Contact Force (Traction or Compression) or an Attraction Force acts on it. Perhaps it is a better way to interpret a "behavior" and not attribute it to a "transformation". Let us remember that in our last essay we already denounced that the author of the aforementioned book seems to have liked to think about "transmutations".

We believe that the best way to approach relative movements with accelerated speeds is using the ideas of: Platforms, Contents and Acting Forces.

In the aforementioned book, on page 60, he presents a "muddy" mathematical formula of doubtful validity. The validity of his approach seems designed so that his answer is in accordance with certain facts and not that, from certain facts, a mathematical formula is raised. The “certain facts are the existence of an Inertial Mass and a Gravitational Mass.

On page 65 of the aforementioned book, his author details a mental experiment in which he exposes the movement of a SAME MASS subjected respectively to a Traction Force and an Attraction Force. The mental experiment exposed by A. Einstein is quite "twisted". Perhaps, from what we will see, we could call him: "read it, understand it, and thus he will learn to walk through a maze"...

This experiment only demonstrates that, in the relative movements between bodies, their CONTENT, the Mass, can be moved using two different types of force. But, from here we cannot deduce anything else. It is only an exposition of a cause that produces its effect. Next, we have transcribed this thought experiment from the aforementioned book and, then, to make it more intelligible to the reader, at the end we have summarized its parts illustrating them with drawings. In this experiment the author, instead of using the elevator, uses the train car again. We transcribe the aforementioned experiment:

“… It is certainly true that the observer who is in the wagon feels a jerk forward as a consequence of the sudden braking and it is true that in this he notices the non-uniformity of the movement. But no one forces you to attribute the jerk to a "real" acceleration of the wagon. You could just as well interpret the episode like this: “My reference body (the wagon) remains constantly at rest. However, (during the braking time there is a temporally variable gravitational field directed forwards relative to it. Under the influence of the latter the embankment, together with the Earth, moves non-uniformly so that its initial velocity is directed backwards , decreases more and more. This gravitational field is also the one that produces the pull of the observer”

As we said, to try to improve the interpretation of this text, we have divided its content graphically and into two parts:

1.- Within a PLATFORM, which is considered a Mobile Reference System (SRM), as a consequence of a deceleration, an Inertial Force is generated over the mass (m) that is called Inertial Mass. This Inertial Mass is generated by braking the wagon.

The following figure represents three phases of advance of the train wagon in its deceleration: -∆(v) , and the movement by inertia of the mass (m).

In this first step, the author wants to highlight that the Mass has moved by inertia or that, from what we already know, in response to a Mechanical Impulse. Thus he intends to demonstrate that what he calls Inertial Mass exists and moves.

2.- In this second step he intends to demonstrate that “the same mass also moves in the presence of a gravitational field. Which he will call Gravitational Mass.

Change the PLATFORM (the wagon) as a Mobile Reference System (SRM) for that of a Fixed Reference System (SRF), and change the concept of moving the mass by inertia in front of the wagon, for the one that it is attracted by a field mobile gravity.

The following figure represents three phases of the movement of a mobile gravitational field that we have written in the previous transcript

 

It places this mobile gravitational field, which is moving in outer space, so we have to think, although it does not say so, that it presupposes some mobile "body" that intervenes and interacts with the mass (m) in this mobile gravitational field. .

This mobile gravitational field is attracting and displacing forward the mass (m), which is inside the immobile wagon. As cited in the experiment, this field increasingly moves further away from the train carriage. Consequently, it is getting weaker. In summary, with this mental experiment the aforementioned Physicist intends to demonstrate that the same mass can be

It moves due to inertia (according to us as a consequence of the mechanical impulse) and it also moves due to the effect of a gravitational field.

Apart from making a "science-fiction" approach, this approach does not allow us to accept: "that since the two actions cause an accelerated movement of the MASS, this is enough for us to accept that the" First Principle of Relativity is fulfilled. The accelerated movement of the Mass (m) precisely denies the fulfillment of such a Principle.

 

7.- THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE

The author of the mentioned book in his mental experiment to validate the accelerated speeds in relative movements, makes the mistake of establishing an EQUIVALENCE between the result of submitting the MASS to the ACTION of an accelerated speed or submitting this same MASS to the attraction of a attractive force, such as gravity. He commits a fallacy of logical inconsistency. This is the fallacy called “false equivalence”. We transcribe the explanation that appears in an information medium that details seven of the possible existing fallacies:

“False equivalence is a fallacy of logic that describes a situation where there is an apparently logical equivalence, but in reality there is none. This fallacy can be classified as a fallacy of inconsistency.

It hurts that the aforementioned physicist, with the intelligence attributed to him, committed an outrage against logic.

(NOTE: Some time ago, in one of our books we also commented on one of these seven fallacies to which we have referred. It is the "ad hominen" fallacy. It is about admitting something as true by the mere fact that a person says it. person to whom we have some consideration.

The reader should not fall into the trap by believing the mental experiment that the aforementioned Physicist proposed to accept the Principle of Equivalence, for being who they say it was!)

In summary, the only EQUIVALENCE that we can establish between the two mentioned ACTIONS is that each of them results in MOVING the mass. But, we ask ourselves, is this EQUIVALENCE valid for us to be able to say that one ACTION can replace the response of the other?

Let's remember the example we gave in our first paragraph in the case of planet Earth. The acceleration of the PLATFORM, has as a response a sliding of its CONTENT; mass. The other ACTION, the force of gravity, does not displace the MASS on the PLATFORM, but attracts it towards its center. In the aforementioned ACTIONS, it is necessary to take into account their way of ACTING. That is, the two ACTIONS ARE NOT EQUIVALENT

 

8.- FACED WITH A SCIENCE FICTION PARADOX, A RATIONAL EXAMINATION

If in our previous essay we said that the “paradox of transmutation was very difficult to believe, in this essay, as we have seen, we have dealt with nonsense that is difficult to accept.

To digest and criticize the use of some mental experiments whose approach deviates from the minimum requirements of logic, we will comment below on a graphic simile that we have already exposed in previous essays. We call it the “Third Eye”.

Through a graphic simile, we present a metaphor that aims to represent our observation of a thought experiment in real life. We place ourselves outside the "observation yard" of the MENTAL experiment and, from the outside, we establish a PHYSICAL experiment to observe what would happen in a real case. This is what we could deduce from our essay.

The following figure is intended to represent this concept. The "yard" of this game is in outer space. Consider the Elevator as the Mobile Reference System (SRM) located in the "patio" and, also, in any situation of this "patio" the Fixed Reference System (SRF) that observes the experiment

If we agree with everything we have analyzed, to reveal another contradiction in this mental experiment we transcribe a piece of the story that appears in the book that we take as a reference and we will discover that its content belongs to the "patio"

We transcribe a part of the aforementioned mental experiment:

“…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, but we must admit that his explanation does not attack reason or known mechanical laws. Even if the crate is accelerated with respect to the Galileo space considered first, it is possible to view it as stationary. So we have good reasons to extend the principle of relativity to reference bodies that are accelerated with respect to each other, and thus a powerful argument has been gained in favor of a postulate of general relativity."

We could put this piece of the thought experiment that we transcribe from the aforementioned book and that aims to validate relative movements with accelerated speeds in the mouth of the person who is outside the elevator and in the "thought experiment yard." We create and save our criteria from outside the “yard”. That is, from the "Third Eye"

Seen from the Third Eye, we say that this is the science fiction argument with which we baptize our essay. We can add that his reason leads us to consider that in the previous reasoning he commits another fallacy of logic. It is that, with a "FEELING" of the person-

The one that is inside the elevator tries to validate the EQUIVALENCE between the result of subjecting the MASS to the ACTION of an accelerated speed or subjecting this same MASS to the attraction of an attractive force.

 

9.- TRANSCRIPT OF THE ELEVATOR THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

From the book by A. Einstein, "On the theory of special and general relativity" (Ediciones ALTAYA S.A. February 1999) in paragraph 20, title: "Equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass as an argument of the postulate of GENERAL RELATIVITY", pages 61 and 62, we transcribe the following:

"Imagine a large piece of empty space, so far from stars and large masses that we can say with sufficient accuracy that we are dealing with the case provided for in Galileo's fundamental law. For this part of the universe it is then possible to choose a Galileo reference body for which the points at rest remain at rest and the moving points remain constantly in a uniform and rectilinear motion.As a reference body we imagine a large drawer in the shape of a room, and we assume that there is an observer equipped with devices for Naturally there is no gravity on him, he has to be roped to the floor, under penalty of being thrown to the ceiling at the slightest hit to the ground.

Suppose that in the center of the roof of the caisson, on the outside, there is a hook with a rope, and that a being, of which we are indifferent, begins to pull on it with a constant force. The crate, 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 reference body not pulling a string.

But how does the man in the drawer judge the process? The floor of the box transmits the acceleration pressure on the feet. Therefore, you must counteract this pressure with the help of your legs if you do not want to measure the ground with your body. So, you will be standing in the box like a person in any room of a house. If you drop a body that was previously in your hand, the crate's acceleration will stop acting on it, so it will approach the ground with an accelerated relative motion. The observer is also convinced that the acceleration of the body with respect to the ground is always the same great regardless of the body that performs the experiment.

On the basis of his knowledge of the gravitational field, as we have discussed in the last section, the man will come to the conclusion that he is, along with the box, within a fairly constant gravitational field. For a moment, however, you will be surprised that the caisson does not fall into this gravitational field, but then you discover the hook in the center of the ceiling and the tight rope attached to it, and you correctly infer that the caisson 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, but we must admit that his explanation does not attack reason or known mechanical laws. Even if the crate is accelerated with respect to the Galileo space considered first, it is possible to view it as stationary. So we have good reasons to extend the principle of relativity to reference bodies that are accelerated relative to each other.

 

THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY - THE PARADOX OF A TRANSMUTATION

PRESENTATION

To help interpret and understand the metaphorical meaning given to the title of this essay, we transcribe the following definition and explanation: "PARADOX: Fact or saying contrary to logic." “TRANSMUTATION: It implies the change of the atomic nuclei. Change one element into another. We believe that in the course of this study we will be able to clarify the metaphorical meaning of the aforementioned title. In order to criticize the aforementioned theory, we have highlighted a paradox that we have called the paradox of transmutation.

 

1. ARGUMENT THAT FOLLOWS THIS ESSAY.

In order to justify that the postulates cited by A. Einstein and that with them he builds his theory are a paradox, we will take as a guideline for follow-up his book entitled: "On the theory of special and general relativity" (Ediciones Altaya S.A. February 1999) The affirmations and postulates that appear in the book are transcribed between quotation marks and italics.

Interpreting the meaning and the order in which its paragraphs are written, we have realized that it leads us to the aforementioned paradox. This being so, this is the path that we will follow in the study of this essay. We believe that our essay is an investigation about what he thought and came up to Einstein when he made his Theory. We will expose these ideas in the same order in which the paragraphs of it are written. And, on these, we will make the pertinent comments that, as we will see, lead us to the acceptance of the title of this essay.

Next, we write the titles that appear in our essay and, in abbreviated form, we summarize the ideas that we get from the paragraphs of the aforementioned reference book:

  PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY. It establishes an identity of results between a Fixed Reference System (SRF) and a Mobile Reference System (SRM). The idea is that the events PASS in the same way

THEOREM OF THE ADDITION OF VELOCITIES. It proposes two ways of assessing the same event viewed from two different Reference Systems. THEY SEE WITH DIFFERENT VALUES

INCLUSION OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It includes the light in the postulates of it. We identify it with the verb SEE. Expresses the intention of being able to SEE from a Reference System what happens in another

LOOKING FOR A COMPROMISE SOLUTION. It fits the constant speed of light with the Velocity Addition Theorem. You need time and space to be "elastic." Use the “trick” of the space-time idea

  THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY. The genesis of the paradox. An ill-conceived thought experiment.

A THESIS.- Explanation of the path of how we have arrived at the concept: Paradox of a Transmutation

Next, we develop the previous concepts.

 

2.- THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY

As we have said in the “Argument that follows our study”:

It establishes an identity of results between a Fixed Reference System (FRS) and a Mobile Reference System (MRS). The idea is that the events PASS in the same way

In the book by A. Einstein that we take as a study reference, he gives as an example the mental experiment of the train car, which we have already talked about in other of our essays. Starting the reading of this book the first postulate that we find is the following:

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

 

(NOTE: A Fixed Reference System is abbreviated as (FRS) and a Mobile Reference System is abbreviated as (MRS))

We accept that it is true that "natural phenomena PASS according to identical laws", but, as we read the following paragraphs, it seems to us that the Physicist's intention is not only to indicate that "they pass" but that he has the intention of wanting say that they can be SEEN and MEASURED. Corroborates our affirmation, the one that in the following paragraphs dedicates them to the speed of light (c) and to how the speed of a body launched from inside a moving mobile is SEEN and calculated from the ground. We talk about this topic in our next paragraph.

 

 2.- THEOREM OF THE ADDITION OF VELOCITIES

As we have said in the “Argument that follows our study”:

It proposes two ways of assessing the same event viewed from two different Reference Systems. THEY SEE WITH DIFFERENT VALUES

In paragraph 6 of the aforementioned book it appears as a title; “The velocity addition theorem according to classical mechanics”. We will consider this paragraph as the beginning of the RERELATION between the (SRF) and (SRM), in order to expose the fallacies of the special theory of relativity.

HE Give as an example:

A train runs at a speed (vt).  Inside it a person walks at a speed (vp). The total speed (vT) with which an observer outside the train will appreciate that the person inside the car moves will be:

 

                                      (vT) = (vt) + (vp)

That is, the two speeds are added. This (VT) is the speed that the man moves with respect to the track.

We think that by saying that "I WILL APPRECIATE", this verb includes the intention to SEE and then CALCULATE.

(NOTE: We highlight the verb SEE since at the end of this essay we will use this verb to demonstrate a contradiction between the postulates preached by A. Einstein)

The same statement of the Velocity Addition Theorem can also be explained as follows:

 inside the wagon a person throws a stone, and it is a question of calculating at what speed the VE circulates an observer who is outside the train wagon.

This version, which we give now, may help us more in the following explanations that we will present.

We insist that the inclusion of this Theorem in his book is the first step in wanting to relate the (SRM) with the / SRF)

 

3.- INCLUSION OF THE SPEED (c) OF LIGHT

As we have said in the “Argument that follows our study”:

It includes the light in the postulates of it. We identify it with the verb SEE. Expresses the idea or intention of being able to SEE from a Reference System what happens in another

If the first step was wanting to RELATE the (SRM) with the (SRF), we detected a second step by trying to include light in its postulates. It is intended to include the speed of light (c).

In the aforementioned book, he comments on the impossibility of including the speed of light (c) within the variables that make up the Velocity Addition Theorem. At that time, it had already been verified that this speed is constant. Unlike the stone that is thrown from inside the wagon, the speed of light does not depend on where the electromagnetic wave is “mounted”.

But he makes a comment that he intends to relate: the VIEW of an (FRS) of what happens in an (MRS), as he has described in the Velocity Addition Theorem:

“… Later we will see that this reasoning, which expresses the theorem of the addition of velocities according to classical mechanics, is untenable and that the law that we have just written is not valid in reality. But in the meantime we will build on its validity.”

This is where we say that an intention to SEE manifests. We repeat what we have already said: "it seems to us that the intention of the Physicist is not only to indicate that they "elapse" but that it has the intention of wanting to say that they can be SEEN and MEASURED".

SEE, when wanting to make light intervene and MEASURE when starting from the Speed ​​Addition Theorem.

(Note: Perhaps in the present times it seems obvious to us that we cannot make variables that represent a mass and those that represent an electromagnetic wave intervene in the same equation. Another thing that we can do is use the mathematical operator that can relate us the speed (v) of a mobile with the speed (c) of light in the same equation. This operator is known: Lorentz factor)

4.- LOOKING FOR A COMPROMISE SOLUTION

As we have said in the “Argument that follows our study”:

It fits the constant speed of light with the Velocity Addition Theorem. You need time and space to be “elastic”

If as announced in the First Law of Relativity:

“…natural phenomena occur with respect to the (MRS) according to the same general laws as with respect to the (FRS).”

and, according to what we have commented in the previous number, when SEEING THEM and MEASURE THEM, according to this postulate we must obtain the same results, the Physicist has a problem. To relate to each other and be able to SEE from an (FRS) exactly the same events that occur in an (MRS), if the speed of light is constant (it is not a function of the speed of the (MRS)), to adjust this vision gap requires that time and space are not fixed but "elastic" so that both the passenger and the observer SEE and VALUE the natural phenomenon in the same way. And, it seems, that then the following idea arises: The time of VISION, becomes relative like space and makes "the invention" of space-time. This is how you adjust what doesn't fit. Observe the reader that we have pointed out the verb “TO SEE”. We are in the first step in which, by making the speed of light (c) intervene, everything revolves around using the verb VISUALIZE.

(NOTE: In order not to mix concepts, we warn the reader of the following. Another different aspect is that, as we are dealing with relative movements and we are talking about the occurrence of Events, to position them we must give their SITUATION (in space) and their  moment(time) it happe. in which it is happening), that is, the instant in which this SITUATION occurs.)

 

5.- THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY

The title of this issue corresponds to paragraph 9 of the aforementioned book. This is where the nonsense begins that we have called "the paradox of transmutation

On page 27 of the aforementioned book, he asks the following question:

“…Two events (for example, the two lightning strikes A and B) that are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, are they also simultaneous with respect to the train?... We will soon show that the answer must be negative...

We transcribe the drawing that appears in the aforementioned book to answer this question.

Figure 1

                     

The explanation that Einstein writes in his book is transcribed at the end of this paragraph. We, sticking to exactly what the book says, to make it more intelligible to the reader, we explain it graphically using the following drawing.

                                                       Figure 2

 
This figure represents the railcar in motion (SRM). An observer sits in the center of the car. Three forward positions are successively represented, at a speed (v). Two rays are fired at the same time from (A) and (B), just touching the opposite walls of the wagon and when it occupies the first position in the drawing. These rays, which are represented by short arrows, are not perceived simultaneously by the observer located in the center of the wagon. Why, due to the movement of the car to the right, at speed (v), the observer will not perceive the existence of the two rays at the same time. The beam coming from (A) will take longer to reach the observer's crosshairs, since the observer is moving along with the wagon in the direction of moving away from the starting point (A). Regarding the ray that has started from situation (B), the opposite occurs than the one that comes from (A). The observer will have been approaching the situation (B) shortening the duration of the arrival of the aforementioned ray. Observing the aforementioned arrows, this is what the second and third position of the previous drawing intend to expose.

In the lower part of the drawing an observer has been represented who is on the ground and who remains immobile in the same starting situation as the observer who, on top of the wagon, occupied the central part of it. Rays (A) and (B) reach this stationary observer (FRS) simultaneously.

From here A. Einstein deduces that the SIMULTANEITY of two events must be valued differently from a (MRS) to a (FRS).

And his response appears on page 28 saying:

“…Events that are simultaneous with respect to the embankment are not so with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Each reference body (coordinate system) has its special time. A temporary location only makes sense when the body of reference to which it refers is indicated…”

and then in the same paragraph he writes:

“The time that a process needs with respect to the wagon cannot be equal to the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment”

It is in this statement that we state the Paradox of Transmutation.

We believe that Einstein's reasoning is not correct.

We are looking at events that have a Proper Time (tp) inherent to them. Let us remember that we already said this in the thought experiment in which the event was “the reflection of a ray of light in a mirror”. Now the event is "a simultaneous occurrence" We think that this "simultaneous occurrence" is the event and we must design it in a different way from how the aforementioned Physicist poses it. The following drawing is intended to illustrate our reasoning.

                                          Figure 3

        

In the figure we want to express that now the roles have been changed regarding the evaluation of Proper Time (tp) that we made in the phenomenon of the reflection of the light ray. Now the observer who quantifies the Proper Time (tp) of the simultaneous perception is the one outside the car. He fixed on the ground. That is, the (FRS). The event: "a simultaneous occurrence" has its (tp) that reaches the (FRS) from both sides.

It is evident that its value would be the same on both sides and would depend on its distance (FRS) from the train car'.

 

A COMPARISON WITH THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT OF THE REFLECTION OF THE RAY OF LIGHT IN THE MIRROR

  We can establish a comparison of the current case with that of the mental experiment of the event "reflection of the light ray in the mirror" that we commented on in some of our previous essays. Figure 4 4 serves to illustrate this case.

                                       Figure 4

   

The person that A. Einstein places inside the wagon, in the light ray reflection experiment, was the operator who carried out the experiment and measured his Proper Time (tp). The person who was on the embankment (FRS) is the one who perceives the effects of the movement of the wagon.

On the contrary, in the example in which the object of observation is "a simultaneous event" the person who observes the (tp) becomes the person outside the car (FRS). while it is the person inside the wagon (MRS) who observes the changes that occur due to the displacement of the wagon. Nothing to invent different perceptions of a simultaneous occurrence! There is a Proper Time (tp) of the simultaneous event, and only one, no matter how much the author of the book wants to fit the events so that they adapt to his Theory. This is what leads to nonsense.

Let us remember that he had already used the space-time trick to avoid "compromise situations".

As we announced at the beginning of this paragraph, we transcribe the explanation that A. Einstein makes regarding the relativity of simultaneity:

“When we say that the rays A and B are simultaneous to the tracks, we mean: the rays of light that leave places A and B meet at the midpoint M of the section of track A-B. Now events A and B also correspond to places A and B on the train. Let M´ be the midpoint of the segment A-B of the moving train. It is true that this point M' coincides with point M at the instant of the lightning strike, but, as indicated in the figure, it moves to the right with the speed (v) of the train. An observer sitting on the train at M', but not having this speed, would remain constantly at M, and the light rays from sparks A and B would reach him simultaneously, that is, these two light rays they would gather precisely in it. The reality is, however, that (judging the situation from the embankment) this observer goes to meet the ray of light that comes from B, instead fleeing the one that advances from A, therefore, he will see the light that comes from B first. than the one that comes out of A. In short, the observers who use the train as a reference body have to reach the conclusion that the electric spark B has fallen before the A. We thus arrive at an important result: Events that are simultaneous with respect to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity).”

 

6.- A THESIS

Analyzing the content and the order in which the paragraphs of the book that we have taken as a study guideline are written, we believe that we have been able to find out the idea, the intention and the mistake made by A. Einstein when considering the theory of special relativity.

Our thesis based on everything we have discussed in the previous issue is as follows:

It seems that A. Einstein, with the idea of ​​investigating the Relativity of Simultaneity, wants to be able to affirm that, when an event that occurs within a (MRS), this same event can be SEEN SIMULTANEOUSLY from its corresponding (FRS). So there is no doubt that the event is IDENTIFIED.

To make such an identification, he tests using a thought experiment whose approach is wrong.

And, with this erroneous approach, he makes his thesis. He says that an event that occurs within an (MRS) can NOT be seen simultaneously from its corresponding (FRS)

And, with this erroneous thesis, he is forced to not be able to IDENTIFY from an (FRS) an event produced in an (MRS).

And, here is born the nonsense or the Paradox of Transmutation. We repeat his statement:

“The time that a process needs with respect to the wagon cannot be equal to the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment”

Regarding the content that we have commented on the previous paragraphs of the aforementioned book, we can appreciate that now he seems to forget the Principle of Relativity that he cited and that we have written in the second paragraph. Now he speaks of "a process" and not of the laws that govern natural phenomena. Perhaps the confusion that he commits on the subject of "relativity of simultaneity" makes him interpret in a different way the vision from the (FRS) of the events that occurred in the (MRS).

  Note the reader that the nonsense comes from having considered the "Relativity of Simultaneity" as two events, and not just one with its corresponding Proper Time.

Here the author of such a statement, using his error as a postulate, no longer tries to SEE in a different way from the (FRS) what happens in the (MRS), but affirms that they OCCUR in a different way when they are located in the ( FRS). This is where the nonsense is generated. The meaning of the given statement makes us think of the verb BEING in a different way, and not of SEEing in a different way. We could only accept it if a TRANSMUTATION takes place... which is a PARADOX. Nonsense!

THEORY OF RELATIVITY - ANALYSIS OF A PARADOX

PRESENTATION

Some treatises on the Theory of Relativity explain the story of the “Twin Brothers” saying the following: “In two twin brothers, one of them is an astronaut. The astronaut leaves for a sidereal flight in which he reaches a speed close to that of light. Returning to Earth he finds that his twin brother has aged much older than he has.

The following figure tries to represent this circunstance:

                                         Figure 1

                 

The drawing represents the beginning of the journey, the journey, and the return. In this third phase, the older brother who has remained on Earth is represented. In the aforementioned books this nonsense is called "the paradox of the twin brothers"

Looking for the definition of paradox, we have found as a definition: "Done or said apparently contrary to logic." It is curious that, considering the meaning of this word, they still dare to maintain science fiction arguments that seek to validate such a paradox, thus protecting the false theory of time dilation. Next, we explain the reason for such an outrage to logic.

 

GENESIS OF FOOLISHNESS

In A. Einstein's book entitled: "On the Theory of Special and General Relativity", he quotes a train car that runs with uniform speed and rectilinear, and then makes the following statement:

“The time that a process needs in relation to the wagon cannot be equal to the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment”

This statement generates the fallacy of time dilation and the other nonsense that we see written about the Theory of Relativity.

In this statement we find three errors:

A logical error in the statement that appears in the aforementioned book

A contradiction between two statements that appear in his own cited book

An erroneous interpretation in different treatises on the subject of the aforementioned theory, to try to validate nonsense.

 

We briefly describe these errors below.

 

AN ERROR OF LOGIC:

In the quoted statement he uses the word PROCESS.

We understand and define as a process:

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

When mentioning in the aforementioned statement "the time that a process requires", this time is INHERENT to the process. It will serve to identify it and we will call it Own Time of the Process (tp). And you can't have another when looking at it from outside the train car. Or from different situations in outer space.

Two different Proper Times imply two different Processes

A PROCESS is not transformed by the mere fact of contemplating it from outside the car

A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN TWO STATEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN THE CITED BOOK

In the statement that we have transcribed from the aforementioned book, "the time that a process needs in relation to the wagon, no...," a contradiction appears.

This affirmation has been tried to express it in some books by means of the following drawing:

                                            Figure 2

                  

In this drawing appears one of the PROCESSES, of which the referred affirmation speaks. It is the one followed by a beam of light emitted inside the car. This ray is reflected in a mirror located on the roof of it. From this they deduce that the time that the beam takes to go to the mirror, reflect in it and return to the starting point where the person who fired it will be different for this person from the one who is fixed on the embankment of the train.

But… in another part of the book it says:

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

What are we left with?... This statement is against the other statement that says:

"The time that a process needs in relation to the wagon, no...".

If we consider the person who is fixed on the ground of the embankment as the Fixed Reference System (SRF) and the PROCESS is developed in the environment of a Mobile Reference System (SRM)… “then the natural phenomena take place with respect to the (SRM ) according to the same general laws as with respect to the (SRF).”

And therefore, the observer outside the wagon should not experience any difference to the phenomenon that occurs inside the wagon. This is the contradiction that we announced.

 

A WRONG INTERPRETATION TO TRY TO VALIDATE A FOOLISHNESS.

 To improve the interpretation of what we want to explain, we propose to use another drawing. Like the previous drawing, Figure 3 means the movement of the train car inside which a beam of light is shot that is reflected in a mirror located on the roof of the car.

                                               Figure 3

               

The round trip time of the light ray is its Proper Time (tp) In each advance position of the wagon the direction of the ray is represented. With this drawing we may clearly see that the ray of light is moving in the same vertical as the person who launches it and that it has its Own Time (tp) inherent to this phenomenon.

It is absurd to argue that, as the person who is outside the car, fixed on the ground, has lengthened the completion of the reflection of the ray of Light, time has dilated.

From outside the wagon: The VISION of the image of the phenomenon is lengthened. Not the Proper Time (tp) of the phenomenon

Applying this conclusion to the “twin brothers paradox” we can say:

If we assume that the person who launches the lightning from inside the train car is the astronaut twin brother, we can affirm that both the Reflection Process of the lightning and the biological process of the aforementioned person have their Proper Time (tp) invariable compared to observation from Eart

(NOTE: in the treatises on the subject that concerns us, they present a relationship between the Travel Time of the ray (td) and the Proper Time (tp) of the reflection phenomenon. This relationship is as follows:

                          
In which the expression: 1/√(1-v^2/c^2 ) is known as the "Lorentz Factor", and in which (c) is the speed of light. (The calculation of this relationship the reader can find described in one of our essays)

As the aforementioned books state that the (td) is the time it takes for the man located outside the train car to see the end of the ray reflection process and , the (tp) is the Proper Time, which is the one that sees the man who is inside the wagon and, as the Lorentz Factor has a value greater than one, they come to the strange conclusion that time dilates since: (td) > (tp).

we repeat that from outside the wagon WE SEE the lengthening of the end of the phenomenon due to the displacement of the wagon. This elongation is due to the Travel Time (td))

A THIRD LOOK

Unlike physical experiments, so-called thought experiments sometimes stray too far from reality and logical reasoning in their approach. We could apply this statement to the mental experiment of the train car that we have previously exposed, and another experiment that A. Einstein uses in his aforementioned book. It is about the mental experiment that he proposes so that we accept as valid the “Principle of Equivalence”. It is another fallacy that we have already talked about in other of our essays. With the sole purpose of stopping to make a brief reflection on this topic, we have tried to visualize with a drawing what happens in these thought experiments. We have baptized such a drawing as "the third eye"

                                                      Figure 4

          
This drawing is intended to suggest the following. It is we who are judging what could happen in the Thought Experiment that poses the fallacy of time dilation and, by assimilation, the paradox of the twin brothers.

It is our eye that visualizes and analyzes the situation. It is an observation outside the gaze and interpretation of the two acting agents. In other words, the man who is riding the train and the man who is still on the embankment and contemplates the course of the ray of light. Our eye, the Third eye, will see that the man standing still on the ground SEES that the Process is lengthening for the astronaut. He sees that the Process is slowing down. But we reason that life is not slower for the astronaut, but rather that he is mounted on a vehicle that transports physical phenomena: the phenomenon of the reflection of a ray of light or the biological phenomenon of the person who launches the ray. And this does not modify at all the Proper Time (tp) of the Processes of it.

 

THE TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOBILE CLOCKS

In this paragraph we denounce the fallacy of the mobile watch test. This fallacy is intended to justify the nonsense of "time dilation."

Its promoters say that a mobile clock with respect to another fixed one, and moving this mobile clock at a speed close to that of light, the time indicated by this clock dilates. They are talking about infinitesimal and almost negligible units. These advertisers of such a fallacy justify this time difference by speaking of an experiment of doubtful authenticity and verification, carried out with atomic clocks, without any guarantee of authenticity. We criticize this argument again using the logic

The following figure represents the train car that we mentioned before, but that now we do not consider the launch of a ray of light. Inside it now contains a pendulum clock.

                                  Figure 5

       
The person who is fixed on the ground has a clock that controls the passage of time. This fixed clock will be taken as a time reference.

The pendulum clock swings from left to right and vice versa. We ask ourselves: can we say that the time inside the wagon has been dilated because the fixed observer takes a longer time to SEE the oscillation that the pendulum makes from left to right? oscillation is due to the fact that the fixed observer's vision of the arrival goal is being displaced. None of the “time dilation” nonsense!

The doubt might arise that we have exposed this thought experiment in which we have implicitly assumed that the pendulum could swing thanks to gravity. The reader will already understand that we can do this same approach in outer space, using a mechanical watch.

 We believe that with the above reasoning we have declared the “twin brothers paradox” to be a fallacy.