THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE - AN ERROR BY A. EINSTEIN

PRESENTATION

To the fallacy of “time dilation”, which we had already studied, A. Einstein needed to add another nonsense of logic to be able to create a “science fiction novel”. It is about “the deformation of space”. So it seemed that everything was adding up.

The bad thing is that he had disciples, and still has, who tried to support such a "novel." If there were no hidden interests, we are surprised that some scientific researchers committed such an outrage against science. We will comment on this in the paragraph entitled: "The fallacy of the false cause".

We take advantage of our essay to vindicate Newton's reasoning against Einstein's.

When we transcribe a text by other authors, we will write it in quotation marks and in italics.

 

THE THESIS OF A. EINSTEIN

About the "deformation of space" we have read the following:

“A. Einstein said, denying Newton, that gravity was not a force that attracted things, but that things do not move when they are attracted to something, but when they are pushed, and by this he meant that if something falls on something else, it is not because it is attracted to it, but because that thing curves space like a whirlpool in a bathtub. “

He continues the writing by saying the following:

“In Einstein's universe, continues the researcher, space and time are deformed by gravity. The Earth distorts the space around it ever so slightly because of its gravity.”

The following figure is the one we find in some treatises on this subject:

                                

Note the reader that the historian from whom we have transcribed part of his writing, begins by saying: "A. Einstein said, denying Newton..."

We will try to validate Isaac Newton.

HOW DID THE RESEARCHERS THOUGHT TO PROVE EINSTEIN'S THESIS?

The researchers thought that the Sun, due to its Gravity, would curve space, in such a way that this phenomenon would become appreciable in the perception of the position of starlight.

(NOTE: On the historical fact of the experiments that were carried out to try to demonstrate the validity of A. Einstein's thesis, the reader can read it on the Web page, in the topic: "How the general theory of relativity was demonstrated". The image that we give is the one that appears in the aforementioned story).

DISADVANTAGES TO OBSERVE THE PHENOMENON

The story goes that the inconvenience to observe the phenomenon was that the light from the Sun would not allow us to see and portray the deflection of the light from the stars. They had to wait for eclipses of the Sun to occur and these occurred periodically in different places on Earth. Several expeditions were made according to the appearance of the eclipses.

A sketch of the distribution of the actors participating in the experiment could be the following:

THE FALLACY OF THE FALSE CAUSE.- AN IMPROPER

In the aforementioned expeditions, unless some historian rectifies us, we believe that an absurdity was committed:

Instead of going to find out the CAUSE they went to report an EFFECT.

And, with this error, they could contribute little to science. Even if the EFFECT was photographed, it contributed little to the validity of Einstein's thesis. For this reason we call such an experiment as "THE FALLACY OF THE FALSE CAUSE".

OTHER CRITICISMS OF THE REFERRED EXPERIMENT

In addition to not fulfilling the experiment with the required purpose, the dubious results obtained in his photographs were also criticized.

The famous physicist Stephan Hawking said the following: "The results obtained by Eddington were a matter of knowing in advance the results that one wanted to obtain."

They also accuse the expedition group "Prince" of manipulation. A reason for discussion is pointed out in a veiled manner, which tipped for success or failure, when the experiments were carried out just after the First World War and their possible resentments.

 

THE REFLECTION OF LIGHT, A PHENOMENON ALREADY KNOWN IN ANCIENT TIMES

A physical phenomenon that goes against the deformation of space as a cause for two masses to come together is the phenomenon of the deflection of light due to gravity. This phenomenon was already taken into consideration by Newton.

(NOTE: In a future study entitled: "The deflection of light. Interpretation of a confusing thought experiment", we will expand this topic).

Years ago, in one of our books we made the following drawing that represents the deformation of the deformed VISION of a body close to the attraction of gravity, due to the deformation of light. BEWARE! Do not associate it with the deformation of the mass as explained by A. Einstein in the chapter on the "measuring bar", criticized in another of our studies.

The figure represents a body referenced by the coordinates (X, Y, Z) in outer space. The vision (light) of this body is distorted by the presence of a gravitational field.

A CONTRADICTION TO THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE AS THE CAUSE OF THE APPROACH BETWEEN TWO MASSES

The following diagram represents the Earth and a mass on top of it. "stuck" to her.

Can we affirm that, because there is no space between them, it is possible to start off the ground and lift the mass without any effort? Is it not true that it costs more to lift a mass of ten kilos from the ground than a mass of one kilo, if the masses are "stuck" to the ground? And in this case space does not intervene.

Experience confirms that the deformation of space as the cause of the "fall" of one mass on top of another is a fallacy.

 

ANOTHER ARGUMENT TO DISCARD THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE

DIFFERENT MASSES AT EQUAL DISTANCE FROM THE ATTRACTIVE MASS.-

The following scheme represents two different masses (M1) and (M2 ) located with respect to the mass of the Earth (MT) at the same distance: (d1) = (d2)

In the next paragraph we will demonstrate that although the space, measured by the distances (d1) and (d2) is the same, the Attractive Force of (MT) to each mass is different.

Hence:

If two different masses, at the same distance from the attractive mass (MT), perceive different attractive forces from this attractive mass, we deduce that "space" does not intervene.

 

TWO DIFFERENT MASSES AT THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE ATTRACTIVE MASS SUPPORT DIFFERENT FORCES OF ATTRACTION.

We will use the resources provided by Isaac Newton to show that two different masses at the same distance from the attracting mass support different forces of attraction.

Considering A. Einstein's nonsense that materialized space, deforming it and “selling it to us” in pieces, we have chosen to use more solvent tools to deal with the issue of the Force of Gravity. We will rely on the tools provided to us by the prestigious genius Isaac Newton. We believe that, at the same time, we vindicate Newton's position against Einstein.

We try to show that:

At equal distance to the attracting mass of two different masses, the forces of attraction to these masses are different

Let's remember Newton's formula of attraction of the masses

In which

(Fa) is the Force of Attraction exerted by an attractive mass (M) on another attracted mass (m)

(d)2 is the square of the distance between the two masses

(G) is the universal gravitational constant.

(NOTE: The validity of this formula has been verified and contrasted empirically. The value of the universal gravitation constant is also verified, among other experiments, with the Cavendish experiment, so we can certify the previous formula.

We also clarify a question that the reader might have. Remember that the acceleration acquired by the two masses in their free fall is the same. Precisely because the "mass" of each of them and the "force" to which the bodies are subjected intervene in this acceleration)

In the example that we have given in the previous paragraph, in which (d1) = (d2) and assuming two different masses (m1) and (m2), for these masses the Forces of Attraction will be:

(Fa)1 =  

     

and       

(Fa)2=

So if (M) is the same for the two attracted masses and also the value (d2) is common for the two masses:

Then, since (m1) is different from (m2), also (Fa)1 is different from

(Fa)2 which is what we have exposed in the previous paragraph.

We believe that in this way Newton wins the battle against Einstein.

 

A DOUBT: If we do not admit the deformation of space and if the concept "field of forces" is an abstract and intangible idea that does not describe the cause of the mutual attraction of two masses, perhaps the attraction of masses occurs between common microelements of the masses. Could it be the neutrinos?... We leave this subject for the investigation of the experts in this subject, it were not the case in which we would fall into fallacies and nonsense like the ones we are criticizing.

THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY. – A MISTAKE OF A EINSTEIN

PRESENTATION

In this essay we criticize the mental experiment exposed by A. Einstein in which he tries to relate an event that has the quality of SIMULTANEOUS, with RELATIVE movements.

The interest of this study is that the author of this experiment draws a crazy conclusion, which we ironically baptize as: "the miracle of transmutation"

We will take as a review guideline the book by A. Einstein entitled: "On the theory of special and general relativity" The transcriptions that we will make of this book will be written in quotation marks and in italics.

 

GRAPHIC INTERPRETATION OF THE MENTAL EXPERIMENT PROPOSED BY THE AUTHOR OF THE AFOREMENTIONED BOOK TO EXPLAIN THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY

We transcribe the text of the mental experiment that appears in the book by A. Einstein.

For your best interpretation, we break down the transcription of the aforementioned experiment into pieces and, then, we will make its corresponding comment. Interested that the reader

Stay with the last two conclusions that we have transcribed from the aforementioned experiment.

The author of the book, using the well-known train car, begins by asking the following question:

"Two events, for example, two lightning strikes (A) and (B), which are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, are they also simultaneous with respect to the train?"

The following drawing shows three phases of advancement of the wagon. In it we make appear the two

LIGHTNINGS (A) and (B) and the RAYS OF LIGHT (A') and (B') that emerge from it.

                        

 “…When we say that the rays (A) and (B) are simultaneous with respect to the tracks, we mean that the rays of light coming from the places (A) and (B) meet at the midpoint (M) of the track section (A)-(B). Now events (A) and (B) also correspond at places (A) and (B) on the train.”

 

In the drawing we have made the rays reach the ground and we have drawn a person at the midpoint (M´) of the distance between the rays

 

..." Now, the events (A) and (B) also correspond in places (A) and (B) on the train."

In the first stage of the drawing, the beam (A) passes just touching the rear of the wagon and the beam (B) just touching the front of the wagon.

 

…” Let (M´) be the midpoint of the segment (A)-(B) of the moving train. This point (M´) is true that at the instant of the lightning strike it coincides with the point (M), but, as indicated in the figure, it moves to the right with speed (v) of the train.”

 

At this midpoint (M´) we have painted a person fixed on the floor of the wagon and, as such, moves with him. This causes it to move toward the path of the light ray (B') and away from the light ray (A').

 

…” An observer who was sitting on the train at (M´), but who did not have this speed would remain constantly at (M) and the rays of light coming from the sparks (A´) and (B´) would reach him simultaneously , that is, these two rays of light would meet precisely in it.”

 

BEWARE! To make this paragraph more intelligible, instead of placing this observer inside the wagon but without speed, in the drawing we have painted him outside the wagon. He fixed on the ground. He would constantly remain at point (M), but we place him outside the wagon. The ray of light (A´) and of (B´) arrive SIMULTANEOUSLY to him

…”The reality is, however, that (judging the situation from the embankment this observer goes to meet the ray of light that comes from (B), fleeing instead from the one that advances from (A).

 

He refers to the observer who is inside the wagon, in (M´), and fixed in the center of it.

 

…” Consequently, you will see the light coming from (B) before the light coming from (A). In short, the observers who use the train as a reference body have to conclude that the electric spark (B) has fallen before the (A).”

 

  The observer that we have placed outside the wagon, as we have indicated in the previous section, says that this observer sees that the person who is inside the wagon reaches the ray of light from (A) before the one from ( B).

…” In short, observers who use the train as a reference body have to conclude that the electric spark (B) has fallen before (A).

We thus arrive at an important result.

Events that are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, are not with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity).”

Here the narration of the aforementioned experiment ends.

We will criticize this conclusion, which goes against the First Principle of Relativity.

 

FIRST PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY

In the book that we take as a reference, he considers a Fixed Reference System (SRF) and a Moving Reference System (SRM) and announces as the First Principle of Relativity:

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

This Principle was already announced by Galileo. Summing up, his explanation, he mentions a ship that advances at a constant and rectilinear speed. He says that in his winery natural phenomena, for example, the flight of a fly, the fall of water from an upside-down bottle... occur in the same way that they occur on the coast.

     

SIMULTANEOUS EVENTS OCCURRING OUTSIDE A MOBILE REFERENCE SYSTEM.- CRITICAL

If a simultaneous event occurs outside of a Mobile Reference System (SRM), it is absurd to want to apply the theory of relative motions to it. This is what happens in the mental experiment proposed by A. Einstein. This "relativity of simultaneity" goes against precisely the First Principle of Relativity that we have commented on in the previous paragraph.

  In the conclusion of the aforementioned experiment we have transcribed that it says:

“We thus reached an important result.

Events that are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, are not with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity).”

 

  This can be interpreted as what happens in the Fixed Reference System (RRF) does not happen in the Mobile Reference System (SRM), which is the first step to doubt the validity of such a mental experiment.

 

A second step that corroborates that the mentioned mental experiment is a fallacy, is the following:

We know that a fallacy occurs when a logical syllogism is to be taken for true and one of its premises is false.

In the aforementioned thought experiment we put forward the following syllogism:

1st PREMISE    The First Principle of Relativity considers the

                          performance of natural phenomena

 

2nd PREMISE    Simultaneity is a natural phenomenon

 

CONCLUSION     SIMULTANEITY considers the performance of

                             natural phenomena

The second premise is false. Simultaneity is not a natural phenomenon. It is a quality that the event of an event has. Grammatically it is a qualifying adjective. It is not a verb. Consequently, the above syllogism is a fallacy.

 

THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS WHERE SIMULTANEITY OCCURS WITHIN THE MOBILE REFERENCE SYSTEM (SRM)

If the simultaneity of an event occurs within a Mobile Reference System (SRM), it is logical that we can apply the theory of relative movements. The event occurs "inside Galileo's ship" of which we had spoken.

We have devised a mental experiment, with relative movements between the train car and a fixed observer outside the car, and where the SIMULTANEITY event occurs inside the car. In this case, we could talk about the relativity of movements.

The following drawing represents three phases of advance of a wagon that goes at a rectilinear and constant speed.

In the center of the wagon there is a person who holds a mass in each of his hands. The masses have equal weight.

Outside the wagon there is a fixed observer on the ground

               

Due to the displacement of the wagon, at the moment that the person who is inside passes in front of the observer who is on the ground, that person who is inside releases the two masses at the same time. We consider this as a SIMULTANEOUS event.

We observe that in the intermediate step of the drawing it is seen that the masses have not yet touched the floor of the wagon.

In the last stage that represents the drawing, the masses have already arrived on the ground.

The observer who is fixed on the ground (SRF), will see the different phases in which the masses fall, in the different phases of the wagon's advance.

We can observe that the physical phenomenon of the masses falling to the floor of the wagon is exactly the same as what would happen to the person outside the wagon (SRF). Therefore, the First Principle of Relativity is fulfilled.

 

THE NONNESS OF A. EINSTEIN

The author of the aforementioned mental experiment intends to establish a correspondence between what an observer sees, who considers it as a Fixed Reference System (SRF), and what an observer located inside the wagon sees. But, be careful, the gazapo is that natural phenomena do not occur inside the wagon. We cannot consider that an Inertial Reference System has been established.

Not realizing this error, he preaches the following:

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

This is where we say that his statement amounts to the "miracle of transmutation"

Now he seems to forget the First Principle of Relativity that he cited and that we have written in the second paragraph. He now speaks of "a process" and not of the laws that govern natural phenomena. The confusion he commits on the subject of "relativity of simultaneity" makes him interpret the vision from the (SRF) of the events that occurred in the (SRM) in a different way.

 

 

 

THEORY OF RELATIVITY - IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A PARTICLE CAN TRAVEL FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

PRESENTATION

Contrary to what is said in the book by A. Einstein entitled: "On the theory of special and general relativity" (Ediciones Altaya S.A. 1999), where it is stated that the speed of light (c) cannot be exceed, we make a mathematical approach to show that a particle can exceed this speed.

When we transcribe some content of the book that we take as a reference, we will write it in quotation marks and italics.

 

1.-WHERE DOES IT APPEAR THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT CANNOT BE EXCEEDED?

On page 36 of the book that we take as a reference, after making an application of the formula of the space of Lorentz Transformations, the following sentence appears:

“For speed v = c it would be

and for even higher speeds the root would become imaginary. From this we infer that in the theory of relativity speed (c) plays the role of a limiting speed that no real body can reach or exceed. We add that this role of velocity (c) as limiting velocity follows from the Lorentz Transformation equations themselves because they lose all meaning when (v) is chosen greater than (c). “

The fact that an equation "loses all meaning" for some values of its variables, perhaps this sentence already indicates that it is not choosing the right path to assess what it intends. If this equation were adequate, we believe that, referring to the variables that compose it, it would have to define for which values it loses its field of validity. It should not be the equation that "loses its meaning" but we must define when its variables lose their field of validity.

Of course, these equations lose all meaning when (v) is greater than (c) since they do not precisely serve the purpose they want to give them… In this case, the observer has no field of vision of the Event to be observed. But he has nothing to do with the fact that the event does not exist and moves at any speed.

We must choose the appropriate mathematical approach so that between the comparison of the speed' (v) of a moving body and the speed of light (c) this incompatibility does not occur. This is what we are going to study.

 

2.- GEOMETRIC APPROACH TO THE OBSERVATION OF AN EVENT THAT OCCURS IN SIDERAL SPACE

In the study of the vision of the appearance of an Event that occurs in outer space, observed from a Mobile Reference System, we will proceed as follows:

We locate three points in outer space. A point (E) will be identified as the place where the Event appeared or was born. Another dot (F) will represent the end of the Event duration. We will identify it as the end of your EXTENSION. A third point (PO) will be the observation point of the Event. To carry out the calculations, these three points will be distributed in such a way that they form a right triangle.

The figure represents that the situation where the event is born is fixed (SRF). The point of observation (PO) is mobile (SRM). It can be moved, of course, always considering the figure of the right triangle.

With this geometric figure we can represent all the variables and parameters that intervene in the observation process carried out from a (SRF), of an Event that happens in a (SRM). With the help of this geometric figure we can make the approach that will allow us to obtain the mathematical expression:  

known as the Lorentz Factor.

The interpretation of the previous figure is the following:

We want to observe from a moving point (PO), the Extension of the Event. This Extension is represented in the drawing by: c.(tp ), where (c) is the speed of light and (tp) which we will call the Event's Own Time. Because the point (PO) is mobile, we include it within a Mobile Reference System (SRM).

The variable (td) represents the Displacement Time of an observer to locate himself at the point of observation (PO), having started from point (F). We identify this point (F) to mark the end of: c.(tp). We consider this point (F) as the starting point of the displacement, since we have to ensure that when the observation point (PO) is reached, the entire Extension of the Event has already been developed. (Note the reader that it is a geometric condition that we are imposing). The variable (tr) means the travel time. Therefore: c.(tr) is the space that exists between the point (E) of appearance of the Event and its observation point. It is the path of the image. It is necessary that the information on the appearance of the Event has arrived from the point (PO).

These will be the "rules of the game" that govern the observation of an Event that occurs in a certain place in outer space and that a mobile observer (relative movements) observes its appearance and duration.

 

3.-VISION CONDITIONS OF AN EVENT AND MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES TO MEET THIS CONDITION

In order to observe an Event, which occurs at a certain point (E) in outer space, from a mobile observation point (PO), two VISION CONDITIONS OF THE EVENT will be:

That the observer is already located at the point of observation (PO) and that the image of the Event has also reached this point.

We can choose two different mathematical approaches to meet the Viewing Conditions of the Event.

SYNCHRONIZATION CONDITION.

This condition requires that the travel time (tr) of the Event image, from point (E) to point (PO), be equal to the observer's displacement time (td), from point (F) to point (PO). That is (tr) = (td)

APPROACH TO COMPENSATION IN TRAVEL S

We will call another mathematical approach that we can give to fulfill the Viewing Conditions of the Event: “Compensation Approach in the Routes.

We will assume that, for the vision of the Event and the arrival of the observer to arrive together at the same point of observation (PO), if the speed (v) of the observer is greater than the speed of light (c) in the path performed by the light (the Event image), then we will also assume that its travel time (td) is less than the travel time (tr) of the Event image.

That is: If (v) > (c) implies that (td) < (tr)

When considering carrying out the necessary mathematical calculation to obtain the formula that allows us to assess the Own Time (tp) of an Event, we will forget about the Synchronization condition and we will consider the possibility that a higher velocity (v) can be compensated with a lower Travel Time (td)

This approach will make the final formula that allows us to value (tp) have a different structure from the one that would be obtained by applying the Synchronization condition and with this "do not lose meaning" as A. Einstein says in his book.

 

4.- TWO INCOMPATIBLE EVENTS IN MATHEMATICS

We can choose two paths (two mathematical models) to visualize and be able to quantify the value of (tp). But, although both allow the value of (tp) to be obtained, one of them is limited and produces a mathematical incompatibility depending on which values are assigned to its variable (v).

Starting from the right triangle that serves as a mathematical pattern, we say the following:

If we impose: (tr) = (td) (a condition)

Y

we assume (v) > (c) (another condition)

this assumption produces an inconsistent event in mathematics

since then implies that: (td). (v) > (tr). (c)

Y

In a right triangle, it is inconsistent that one leg is greater than its hypotenuse.

This mathematically incompatible path is the one chosen by the author of the aforementioned book to justify the invalidity of the factor

of Lorentz when (v) is equal to (c)

However, in a later essay we will see that the path of considering the Synchronization condition leads us to give us a result that will be useful to start another analysis. It is for these that in the following paragraph we explain its mathematical development.

 

5.- MATHEMATICAL DEVELOPMENT TO OBTAIN THE OWN TIME (TP) OF AN EVENT, APPLYING THE SYNCHRONIZATION CONDITION

In order to do the calculations to obtain the display and the value of (tp) from the point of observation of the Event (PO), we are going to impose the SYNCHRONIZATION condition. so it must start from the point (F) in which the full extent of the Event can already be seen. In addition, another condition is that it arrives at the point (PO) precisely when the Event image has arrived. Therefore, when the calculation process begins, we will impede the condition:

                                          (td) = (tr)

and the value (tr) is replaced by its equivalent (td).

To start the mathematical study we will observe the figure that we have drawn in paragraph 2, and we will proceed to develop the calculations, applying the Pythagorean Theorem.

                   
Demanding the fulfillment of the Synchronization Condition:

                                  (td) = (tr)

allows us to substitute (tr) for (td) with what is obtained:

 

Grouping terms we have:

We can transform the denominator as follows:

                

And from here we get:    

In the previous formula, the expression: 

is known as the Lorentz Factor. 

Let's remember that this approach is the one that produces an incompatible ucess in mathematics, but it is precisely the one that A accepted. Einstein and his followers.

6.- MATHEMATICAL DEVELOPMENT TO OBTAIN THE (Tp) USING THE COMPENSATION APPROACH IN THE ROUTES

We can give another approach to assess the Own Time (tp) of an Event (E), which occurs in a Fixed Reference System (SRF), from another Mobile Reference System (SRM).

In this other approach, we will enforce the VISION CONDITIONS OF THE EVENT in a different way than what we have explained in the previous paragraph. We will use the Compensation Approach in the Walkthroughs.

Remember that this approach implies that a higher value of the variable (v) implies a lower value of the variable (td), that is, we will justify the following:

                           If v > c implies that (td) < (tr)

With this justification and NOT taking into account the equality

(tr) = (td) that we had commented on in the previous case, we proceed to develop the path to obtain the value of the Own Time (tp) of the Event and with it its Extension (c. (tp)).

We will use the figure we have drawn in paragraph 2 as an observation guideline. The steps to follow are the following:

 

With what we have obtained the proper time of the event.

We ask ourselves: is this mathematical expression obtained valid? If it is valid, we can accept that a particle traveling in the direction of the axis (X) of the aforementioned drawing, can reach a speed: (v) > (c).

We must study the field of validity of the previous formula.

 

7.- FIELD OF VALIDITY OF THE RESPONSE OBTAINED USING THE COMPENSATION APPROACH IN THE ROUTES

We will analyze the field of validity of the formula:

            

that we have obtained in the previous paragraph.

We check if the condition is met:   

    

It would be zero when:

     

  = 

and this would imply c×tr=v×td

Considering the geometric pattern that has served as the basis for the mathematical development, we see that in this right triangle it is impossible for the hypotenuse to be the same as one of the legs. Consequently, the value of the radicand cannot be zero. So, using geometry, we can state mathematically that a particle can travel at speeds greater than the speed of light.

The formula would also be valid when (v) was much smaller than (c), that is: v<<<c. Then it would happen that, very approximately, tp = tr

Which would indicate that we were at the starting point (F) in which the path of the image of the light is equal to the Extension of the Event.

(NOTE: Delving a little deeper into the issue of the validity of the formula we have obtained, we could ask ourselves what would happen if we considered speeds (v) much higher than that of light. That is, if (v)>>>(c) This would vary the values of the right triangle on which the formulation of the formula is based, obtaining a very small displacement on the base leg and a very large TOwn time (tp), so that the Extension: c.(tp) of the event would be very large. Realize that now we are not evaluating exclusively the value: v^2/c^2 but its routes through its time. Perhaps this is the behavior of the particles?... We leave this question for to be judged by microparticle experts)

(NOTE: In the booklet "Theory of relativity.- Critique of nonsense analyzed in seven installments" you will find seven topics for debate on this theory.