THEORY OF RELATIVITY - DECEPTIVE APPROACHES - THIRD DELIVERY

(Intellectual Property Registry: B-221-21)

We continue with the topic: 2.4.- THE FALLACY OF THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE

WHAT INFORMATION DOES NEWTON'S LAW PROVIDE US?

The aforementioned Newton's law informs us of the way of valuing and the way of acting of the Masses that intervene with respect to the Force of Attraction (Fa) that appears between them. Newton informs us that a force field appears between the Masses, but he does not inform us of 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 investigation we do not go against common sense, we suggest using an analysis carrying out the following three steps:

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

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

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

Maybe it's the Neutrinos moving around

 sidereal space and crossing all the masses establish the nexus between two Masses?... We leave to the consideration, analysis, criticism and investigation of the experts in Atomic Physics.

 

WHAT HAS THE PREVIOUS ANALYSIS USED 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 in 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 LINK.

 

WHAT WRONG CONCLUSION CAN WE DRAW FROM THE OBSERVATION OF FIGURE 1?

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 should not give him material attributes

 

TWO THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS THAT INVALIDATE THE IDEA OF SPACE WARPING AS A CAUSE OF GRAVITY

We have designed two mental experiments in order to invalidate the idea that Space intervenes as a variable to consider 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

 

1.- MENTAL EXPERIMENT WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF SPACE

Let us remember that we separate as two different entities, the Space and the Masses that occupy this Space.

If in the approach of the appearance of attractive forces (Fa) between two Masses, we omit the intervention of SPACE, we wonder if these forces will really appear.

If with the aforementioned omission we can observe that those forces continue to exist, this will allow us to affirm that the concept of SPACE and its DEFORMATION are not causative agents of the physical phenomenon that we are dealing with.

APPROACH TO THOUGHT EXPERIMENT No. 1

Suppose two MASSES located in outer space, touching each other, or very close to each other, in which we can appreciate that there is practically NO “Space” between them. Can we say for this that there is no force of attraction between them? them because there is no “Space”?

REPRESENTATION OF THE EXPERIMENT

Without worrying about the scale of the values ​​of its dimensions, we have drawn a large Mass that can correspond to the globe (MT) and, practically on top of it, another small mass, which could be, for example, a stone (mp) Reality confirms that we cannot say that since there is no "space" between them that can be deformed, there is no gravity                             

                                  

A POSSIBLE DOUBT: Doubt may arise when asking ourselves if, since there is no Space, how do the MASSES interact? In a previous paragraph, when talking about the possible existence of subatomic particles, we have commented that it seems that what produces this nexus is present both in Space (support of the Physical Phenomenon that we are considering) and inside the acting Masses themselves. . We repeat what we have already said: perhaps the exchange of the subatomic particles corresponding to each of the two Masses is involved here? We leave this investigation for the experts on these topics.

2.- MENTAL EXPERIMENT WITH EQUAL SPACES BETWEEN THE ACTING MASSES

 EXPERIMENT APPROACH

In this thought experiment we consider two masses of different sizes (m1) and (m2) that are at the same distance (d) from a third Mass that attracts them. That is, we will assume

(d1) = (d2) The figure tries to represent this situation. We will suppose, for example, that the big ball is the Earth. We have represented its Mass by (MT).

 

                      

AN OBSERVATION

Do not confuse concepts:

It is interesting that we take into account that the ACCELERATION with which both Masses are subjected is the same, but they are subjected to different Forces of Attraction (Fa). We must consider that what we are investigating is the concept "FORCE" and not the concept "ACCELERATION". We investigate the cause. Not the effects. For this reason it is interesting to take into account this conclusion and that it could divert us from our objective

 

DIFFERENT FORCES OF ATTRACTION.

If we take as an example two very different masses, such as: a stone with a mass equal to: (mp) = 1Kgm. and a battle tank with a mass equal to (mc) = 62.5 x 103 Kgs. that fall from the same height towards the surface of the Earth, we will obtain that the Forces of Attraction to which they have been subjected are respectively equal to:

                      (Fc) = 61,464x 104 Kgs

                     (Fp) = 9,834 kg.

The conclusion is that two masses (m1) and (m2) at the same distance from the attracting mass (MT) are subjected to different Forces of Attraction (Fa). So we have to deduce that the notion of the intervention of SPACE in the referred Force of Attraction "has vanished". We are left with the idea that the main ACTORS are the MASSES. NOT THE SPACE.

(NOTE: In the book by the same author of this essay, entitled: "Theory of Relativity. -A false theory" the data and the calculation process are given to reach the referred results)

ACQUIRED ACCELERATION IS THE SAME

We can verify that the two mentioned different forces generate equal accelerations. If we divide each Force obtained by its corresponding Mass, identical values ​​will be obtained. That is to say:

                    (Ac) = (61.464 x 104 )/62.5x103 = 9.834 m/sec²   

                    (Ap) = 9,834/1 = 9,834 meters/sec²   

These results serve to remind us of what we said before: “Do not confuse concepts”

A PROBABLE DOUBT?

Perhaps in this confusion that the well-known Physicist subjects us to, with the idea that space bends, we wonder if we should consider the interior of the two spheres as a "space". absurd idea. We must be clear about the distinction between: SPACE and BODIES. The attracting Mass must be considered as a whole. As a BODY whose center of gravity is precisely in the center of this BODY

A FINAL DOUBT

We summarize our last doubt in the question: can we associate the Gravitational Matter that Einstein speaks of with Dark Matter?

(END OF DELIVERIES) 

THEORY OF RELATIVITY - DECEPTIVE APPROACHES - SECOND DELIVERY

 (Intellectual Property Registry: B-221-21)

 

2.2.- GENESIS OF NONSENSE.- INERTIAL MASS AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS.

 In A. Einstein's book entitled: “On the special and general theory of relativity, paragraph 19 talks about the Gravitational Field and, on page 60, it says the following:

"... then the following theorem is valid: the gravitational mass and the inertial mass of a body are equal."

He reaches this conclusion after making a question of doubtful validity. `He proposes an axiom of doubtful acceptance. But, the most outstanding thing is that he commits a fallacy that we consider to be the GENESIS OF FOOL . Instead of saying “they are the same” he should have said “it is the same”. In this way we would identify it as unique. Not as a concept with the possibility of using two different versions.

The expressions INERTIAL MASS and GRAVITATORY MASS DO NOT represent two types of mass. It should not be interpreted that way. It is the same concept or entity subjected to two different types of force. But, what is more, even if he said that they are the same, this does not authorize him, as we will see later, to say that two different types of force on a mass manifest the same effect.

We must apply this idea in the realization of physical phenomena in which we make the mass intervene. It is clear that it is not the mass that is "transformed" but rather the forces acting on it that make us contemplate or examine different physical phenomena.

                

in the figure two types of force are distinguished: Contact Forces and Attraction Forces. The Contact Forces can be divided into: traction and thrust.

The bodies, stone block and apple falling from the tree, as regards the physical nature of their mass, are identical. We can point out that, we know that there is a constant value (G) of universal gravitation. This is what refers to an inherent characteristic of dough. Another aspect is to consider what kind of forces act.

This classification will be useful to take into account in the “elevator thought experiment” that we will discuss later.

 

A DOUBT

After considering the definitions of Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass, and not being experts in cosmology, we wonder: could we not establish an implication of Dark Matter, with this that the physicist intended to classify it as Gravitational Matter ... Perhaps in this Force the Normal Matter and Dark Matter ... Perhaps our doubts are another nonsense ..

 

2.3.- MENTAL EXPERIMENT OF THE ELEVATOR.- THE FALLACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE.

 In Fascicle 7 of our "little book": "Theory of relativity. - Critique of a despair analyzed in seven installments "we transcribe the thought experiment described in the book by A. Einstein, known as the" elevator thought experiment ". It is about justifying the

extension of the principle of relativity to bodies that accelerate with respect to others and gives rise to the Theory of General Relativity.

As a reminder we will give only a summary of the content of this experiment to remember and highlight the errors of logic, and principles of Physics, that you commit.

To see the purpose that the aforementioned physicist intended to demonstrate, we transcribe the final part that he quotes in this experiment:

"... So we have good reasons to extend the principle of relativity to reference bodies that accelerate with respect to others, thus a powerful argument has been made in favor of a generalized relativity postulate."

Thus ends the description of the thought experiment, in which we can see the purpose that he sought to demonstrate with his experiment

To offer our criticism to the reader, we synthesize the content of the "Experiment" detailing the following:

A box (elevator) is pulled upwards by a rope that transmits a uniformly accelerated speed to it.

Inside the box there is a person.

                                          Figure 2

                                     

This person in each hand carries two bodies, which contain a certain mass. If you release these masses, you will see that they "fall" on the elevator floor.

                                          Figure 3 

             

Figure 3 tries to represent the equivalence of effects of the two physical phenomena. One made on the ground and the other inside the elevator floating in outer space and pulled by a rope that accelerates it.

In the experiment it is said:

 "This makes him think that there is a force, similar to gravity, that pulls them towards the elevator floor."

First error:

It mistakes the performance of two different types of force as the same result. It equates the result of applying a Force of Contact, of Traction of the rope on the carcass or roof of the elevator and of the carcass on the feet of the person, with a Force of Attraction.

In the experiment it is cited that the man who goes inside the elevator

By noticing the pressure on his feet produced by the elevator casing, he will equate this pressure equivalent to the force of gravity.

A nonsense! The first mistake is to use a subjective concept forbidden to use it in a scientific demonstration. The experiment model is a utopia

Second mistake:

To unmask this false equality represented in Figure 3 we say: IT IS NOT THE MASS THAT «FALLS» IT IS THE SOIL THAT “RISES”

No ATTRACTION Force is generated, as is the one exerted by Gravity, and which makes the masses “fall”.

                                                    Figure 4

                    

The Figure represents three snapshots of the elevator in its "rise" pulled by the rope attached to the ceiling. The man is as if he were part of the carcass, since he is in contact with it, and is subject to pressure on his feet. It is the same TRACTION force exerted by the rope and transmitted by the carcass to its base. The elevator casing is the "container" The same does not happen with the Mass (content) that is inside the elevator and that is not part of its casing. This Mass reaches the floor of the elevator by displacement of the carcass.

Extending the nonsense of this experiment a little more, we can think that it is impossible for the laws of physical phenomena to be fulfilled, for example, of the: pendulum; parabolic shot; fluid dynamics ..., if we intend to make the equivalence between an attractive force and a contact force. We believe that with the previous explanation the invalidity of the Equivalence Principle, which claims to be one of the bases of General Relativity, is already clear.

In our little book: "Theory of relativity.- Criticism of a nonsense" we expand this topic a little more. We also speak of a fallacy of "logical relevance".

 

 

2.4.- THE FALLACY OF THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE

Since no explanation was found for the existence of the force of gravity, the idea that space is deformed was suggested. Thus, fitting this fallacy with the fallacy of time dilation, everything works out!

We consider this issue as the main axis of our criticism. Consequently, we will fully transcribe the fascicle that in our “little book” deals with this topic.

In this booklet we criticize the fallacy of the existence of attraction between two masses, due to the deformation of space. We will use a method of investigation and criticism developed by the author of these fascicles himself.

We believe that: faced with a lack of knowledge of the causes of the phenomenon, an explanation is given that goes against common sense. We have read that A. Einstein to try to explain the existence of the Force of Gravity, not finding an explanation came up with the idea, against all logic and common sense, that space curves.

The presence of the Earth warps the Space that makes another Mass approach and "fall" on it. Figure 1 is intended to signify this phenomenon

                                          Figure 1

                       

 AN EXPLANATION THAT DOES NOT SATISFY

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.

(To be continued in a future installment)

 

THEORY OF RELATIVITY - DECEPTIVE APPROACHES

(Intellectual Property Registry: B-221-21)

FIRST DELIVERY

PRESENTATION

Recently we read in different writings of a scientific nature, topics that seem written only to praise the Theory of Relativity. With this essay we criticize this theory, trying with our arguments to restore common sense in the interpretation of relative movements.

 Some of these arguments the reader will be able to see them written in our “little book” entitled: “Theory of relativity. - Criticizes de a nonsense analyzed in seven installments ”. We define our treatise as a "little book" since it contains only slightly more than fifty pages, but we believe that it is not necessary to extend much when in a few words an absurdity can be highlighted.

 The first topic that we will address will be: "The (GPS) and mobile watches". The writings that speak of this subject put it as experimental evidence, pretending to defend the Theory of Special Relativity. They accept the fallacy of time dilation. In our "little book", in fascicle three, entitled: "Criticize the conclusions of the essays that have tried to prove the fallacy of time dilation", we have already included this topic. But what we now intend is to denounce all the wrong or false information aimed at accepting the fallacies of the aforementioned theory.

We will also criticize the use of the Theory of General Relativity. Recently, some popular science fascicles have appeared on “dark matter” and “black holes”, which admit the fallacy of the “deformation of space”.

This Theory, supported by the fallacy of the Equivalence Principle, leads us to admit that the force that a Mass (M) attracts another mass (m), is interpreted as a consequence of a deformation of the space between them. We will see that a fallacy that has its origin in another fallacy is admitted.

 (We will make THREE DELIVERIES of the aforementioned topics.)

STUDY DIVISION

For the reader's orientation, we give the following guideline for the development of the study:

1.-. The fallacy of Special Relativity. (GPS) and mobile watches

2.- The fallacy of General Relativity:

     2.1.- Transcription of some comments that appeared in fascicles

             of scientific popularization.

     2.2.- Genesis of nonsense. - Inertial mass and gravitational mass

    2.3.- Mental experiment of the "elevator". The fallacy of the Principle of

            Equivalence

   2.4.- the fallacy of the · deformation of space.

    

1.- THE FALLACY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY.- A CONFUSION WHEN EXPLAINING (GPS) AND MOBILE WATCHES.

We deal with this issue, already exposed in our "little book", in the third fascicle entitled: "Criticize the conclusions of the essays that have tried to prove the fallacy of time dilation". The reason for inserting it in the present study is because we have repeatedly read some writings in which they claim to support the aforementioned theory, justifying it through the use of mobile clocks.

When explaining how to act (GPS) and the mobile clocks that they have incorporated, the writings that deal with the subject make the mistake of associating them with the Theory of Relativity as proposed by Einstein. In this way, they intend to validate the fallacy of time dilation.

We transcribe a part of one of the aforementioned writings:

“GPS receivers determine their position by triangulating from the time signals they receive from various satellites.

Correct synchronization of these clocks with the clocks on the earth's surface is essential for this correct positioning. These satellites have very precise atomic clocks, which in principle do not significantly slow or advance but relativity plays a trick on them.

Because of these effects predicted by Einstein's theory, it turns out that the satellites' clocks are ahead of those on the ground.

After launching the first satellite in 1977 and 20 orbits, the satellite's clock was observed to be 442.5 parts of 1012 faster than an identical one on the earth's surface that are 38,000 nanoseconds ahead. This is the advance that clocks in orbit suffer (or the delay that clocks suffer on the earth's surface) and it must be corrected in the satellites for a correct positioning "

(We write the following link in case the reader wants to expand what is said in that writing: http://www.relatividad.org/bhole/gps.htm)    

 Actually, it is a question of relative movements, but, from here to going to stop as time stretches, it is a logical aberration. We comment on this fallacy.

His misinterpretation comes from the statement we find in Einstein's book, entitled: "On the theory of special and general relativity." Speaking of a train car inside which a process is carried out, in this statement 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"

In our "little book" entitled: "Theory of relativity.- Criticism of a nonsense", we baptized such an affirmation as the GENESIS OF DISPARATE. In it we set out more than three reasons to justify that this statement cannot be accepted as an axiom. To see this nonsense more clearly, we represent the train car, which appears in some treatises on the subject, and which we also give in the aforementioned "booklet", in the following figure:

In the thought experiment of the train car, which is traveling at a certain constant speed (v) and rectilinear. Inside there is a phenomenon of reflection of a ray of light in the mirror (back and forth) that is glued to the ceiling. This phenomenon has an Own Time (tp), and this is unique. It is inherent in this process. The one observed from outside the wagon does not justify that this (tp) changes in value.

In the relative movement of an object or body, with respect to a fixed observer, the transformation of the Proper Time (tp) of the object or process is not observed, but the value of the vision of the path of the body or process is observed.

                                  
In the thought experiment of the train car, which is traveling at a certain constant speed (v) and rectilinear. Inside there is a phenomenon of reflection of a ray of light in the mirror (back and forth) that is glued to the ceiling. This phenomenon has an Own Time (tp), and this is unique. It is inherent in this process. The one observed from outside the wagon does not justify that this (tp) changes in value.

In the relative movement of an object or body, with respect to a fixed observer, the transformation of the Proper Time (tp) of the object or process is not observed, but the value of the vision of the path of the body or process is observed.

                                            Figure 2

                       

This figure represents the observer who is fixed on the ground, and who receives information about the amplitude of the phenomenon, through the arrival of electromagnetic waves. The perception and measurement by this observer, of the referred phenomenon, will be distorted by including in them the movement of the wagon.

Another theme is represented on the left side of the figure. It really means the (tp) of the process. It is the one observed by the person who goes inside the car and throws the beam. It is as if the wagon is stopped..

We can equate the ticking of a pendulum clock to the process of the reflection of the ray of light, and assimilate it to the passage of time. The process monopolizes the different positions through which it runs until it reaches the same starting point.

                                                   Figura 3

                       

There would be a difference between what the clock of the person who is fixed on the ground would mark and the pendulum mobile clock. Your Own Time (tp).

(NOTE: We have simplified taking into account the variables that may intervene in the phenomenon, in order to make it as intuitive as possible. Thus, we have associated it with the train car. But, in reality, if we place the pendulum clock in space sidereal, this example would be of little use to us if we did not intervene, somewhere, a gravitational force that allows the law of the pendulum to be fulfilled) In the absence of gravity we can think of mechanical or atomic clocks

                                                  Figure 4

                     

In the Figure we have kept the idea of ​​the train car, with the wheels on the ground, although in reality we must place the experiment in outer space.

Small time lags will be observed due to information time. That is, the time it takes for the electromagnetic waves to arrive and that depends on the amplitude of the Displacement Time (td) of the mobile clock. We can say: NOTHING OF DILATION OF TIME. Yes to RERLATIVE MOVEMENTS. NO TO THEOERIES OF RELATIVITY.

 

2.- THE FALLACY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY

Before going into developing the topics of: the fallacy of the Equivalence Principle and the fallacy of the "deformation of space", we transcribe some manifestations that appear in some fascicles that speak of "dark matter" and "black holes" and that In the absence of finding a rational statement, they rely on the Theory of General Relativity. We will take advantage of this transcript to make a critique of its concepts. In this review, for the text that we will transcribe of the aforementioned statements, we will write them using italics, enclosing the text in quotation marks.

 

2.1.- TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TEXT OF SOME FASCICLES OF SCIENTIFIC DISCLOSURE

We initiate the aforementioned transcript and our comments.

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

“The principle of special relativity establishes that the speed of light is constant in any reference frame, that is, it does not depend on the speed of the observer. This has radical consequences. Space and time must be treated together, so that we will no longer speak of space and time, but of a single entity known as space-time. "

OUR COMMENT:

We believe that the use of the space-time entity is not required precisely by the constancy of the speed of light. It is obvious that when we observe the RELATIVE physical phenomena, which occur in outer space, and that we translate them as EVENTS or EVENTS, we must determine the situation in which they occur, the space implies, and the time in which it occurs. That is, we define not only the POSITION but also what we will define as the SITUATION. This concept encompasses both entities.

 (See the essay by the same author of this study, entitled: "Theory of relativity. - Mathematical interpretation of the Lorentz Factor")

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

“In addition, both the time elapsed between two events and the length of an object in the direction of the observer, they depend on the speed of the observer. Thus, a clock moving at a speed close to that of light with respect to a reference frame that we consider at rest will be delayed with respect to it, that is, the Time measured by the moving clock would progressively slow down with with respect to the system at rest. These effects of time dilation and length contraction are only important at speeds close to that of light. In other words, they have no significant effects on our ordinary life. "

OUR COMMENT:

We have already talked about this topic before. Also in our “little book” we talk about the fallacy of the deformation of the mass.

 

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

“If special relativity disrupted the idea of ​​absolute time, general relativity for its part changed our notions about gravitation. In classical Newtonian physics, gravitation consisted of the attraction between bodies that have mass according to the law of universal gravitation. In relativistic physics, gravitation is the effect of the deformation or curvature of space-time produced by the mass of objects, a black hole, for example, curves space-time. "

OUR COMMENT:

In our essay we will dedicate a booklet to criticize the fallacy of the “deformation of space”. It seems important to us to unlink black holes with the intervention of this fallacy.

 

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

 "General Relativity is a theory that describes the way in which the same phenomenon is viewed by different observers, regardless of their position, speed or acceleration"

OUR COMMENT:

See the fallacies of "time dilation" (Special Theory) and that of the "Equivalence Principle" (General Theory) discussed in our "little book", in the first issue: "LA GENESIS DEL DISPARATE". You can also find this topic, among others edited, in our blog, entering in Google: teoriadelarelatividad.com

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

“… In this sense it is an extension of Special Relativity, formulated by Einstein in 1905 and which referred only to observers with constant speed. The notions of space and time are not as our intuition seems to tell us, that is, inert and immutable magnitudes, space-time, as a whole can be stretched, shrunk, bent and twisted.”

 

OUR COMMENT:

We will see that the "thought experiment" that Einstein claims to rely on to justify the Equivalence Principle and with it to validate the Theory of General Relativity is a fallacy.

 

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

 “… But, in addition, general relativity is a theory of gravitation. The important point is that, according to her, is that space is curved due to the presence of mass and energy. The important point is that, according to her, spacetime curves due to the presence of mass and energy. According to general relativity in the vicinity of a large mass, spacetime curves. An object left to itself, when approaching this great mass, enters a zone of curved space-time and its trajectory is altered, accelerating "

                                         

OUR COMMENT:

The ignorance of the cause of the existence of the force of gravity should not be replaced by the absurdity that space is deformed.

Later, we will transcribe a fascicle of the "little book": "Theory of relativity.- Criticism of a nonsense" to denounce this fallacy.

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

 “Since stars describe orbits of gigantic radius the relativistic effects are absolutely negligible. For them the predictions of Newton and Einstein are totally equivalent.

Well, maybe Einstein's predictions are not perfect either, and at these giant distances the real gravitational force is different from that distanced by his equations, causing an effect that seems to be produced by dark matter; just as the anomalies of Mercury's orbit seemed the effect of a mysterious, and ultimately nonexistent, planet Vulcan”

OUR COMMENT:

For the first time, our editor seems to be beginning to doubt the validity of the aforementioned theory and agrees with Newton.

In our opinion, he is getting closer to the phenomenon of the force of gravity by using the concept of dark matter than by using the fallacy of the deformation of space. (In the issue that we will expose on this topic, we will see that when we published it we already pointed out such a possibility)

 

IT IS SAID IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

 “… Let's remember, the presence of matter and energy determines the way in which space-time bends. It is certainly a very difficult concept to imagine, but perfectly possible to formulate mathematically.

OUR COMMENT:

Being able to mathematically formulate an absurdity does not validate it as true.

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

 "And what do the equations of relativity say about the dynamics of the universe? Einstein himself verified that these did not admit a solution in which the universe was static. The equations indicated that the universe must necessarily go through a phase of expansión

OUR COMMENT:

Here they try to sneak in the fallacy of the deformation of space. We believe that it is the objects (stars, galaxies ...) that are separating. It is not that the space between them is dilated.

 

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

 “Other scientists predicted in the last century, the phenomenon of the expansion of the universe and even came to the concept of Big Bang, the moment of the great explosion that gave rise to the subsequent expansion. It is overwhelming to think that such formidable results can be reached on nothing less than the origin of the universe, reasoning on some mathematical equations that fit on a line "

OUR COMMENT:

As a curiosity, you can read our research work published on our blog and also in the scientific journal: "International Journal of Fundamental Phisycs Sciences", entitled: "The expression E = mc ^ 2 shows that in ancient times there was a great explosion." The reader will observe that the aid of the Theory of Relativity is not cited at all,

 

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

 “Let us remember that the theory of general relativity predicts that the universe must necessarily go through a phase of expansion. As actually observed in reality. Let's delve a bit into the characteristics of this expansion. What you have to imagine is that it is space itself that is stretched equally in all directions, so that the galaxies "inserted" in it progressively separate. It is what is called a homogeneous and isotropic expansion "

OUR COMMENT:

Once again they try to validate nonsense.

 

IT SAYS IN THE MENTIONED COLLECTION:

 "Naturally, if the universe is accelerating its expansion," something is wrong "in the initial theoretical reasoning, based on the equations of general relativity, which predicted that the expansion should slow down. Are Einstein's equations wrong? "

OUR COMMENT:

It seems that, in the end, our commentator begins to doubt the fallacies of the dilation of time and the deformation of space.

 

(WILL CONTINUE IN A NEXT DELIVERY)