PRESENTATION
Although in
previous studies published in our Blog, we have used the ideas that we will now
comment on, we believe that it will be interesting to combine these concepts
and highlight the mistaken idea that has led to accepting the Theory of Special
Relativity as valid.
We remember
that one of the texts that we have taken as a basis for our criticism is A.
Einstein's book entitled: “On the theory of special and general relativity.
AN ERROR THAT CAUSES A SHOOTING
We will first
expose an error of interpretation in the mental experiments proposed by A.
Einstein to demonstrate his theory, whose interpretation leads to the absurdity
of having to accept a transmutation of matter.
1.- THE ERROR
OF IDENTIFYING THE VISION OF A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON WITH THE CHANGE IN NATURE OF
THE SAME
In one of our
previous essays we said the following:
“In the
mental experiments taken from the aforementioned book by
Einstein, we
will accept his conclusion as valid using the verb SEE instead of using the
verb BE that the author uses in his approach and conclusion.
By this we mean that we agree that the
physical phenomena that occur within a Mobile Reference System (MRS) when
OBSERVED from another Fixed Reference System (RFS) can BE modified. This
modification will affect the VISION dimension of its duration, or the dimension
of its mass. But what we do not accept is the use of the verb SER. We should
not interpret that the phenomenon that occurs within the Mobile Reference
System (SRM) when observed from the Fixed Reference System (SRF) has been
transformed”
We can say
the same if the physical phenomenon occurs within a Fixed Reference System
(SRF) and is SEEN or observed from a Mobile Reference System (SRM).
The following figure is the typical drawing
in which a train car appears moving at a constant speed. There is a mirror on
the ceiling. A person inside the car shoots a beam of light at the mirror. This
ray is reflected in the mirror and returns to its place of origin.
This phenomenon of reflection of the light ray serves to confuse analysts of the subject of relativity of movements, to say that the duration of the path of the rebound of the light ray, for the person who is outside the car (SRF), is has lengthened with respect to the peron that is inside (SRM) and that has fired the beam.
The person
outside the car (SRF) SEES the lengthening of the beam path. His SUBJECTIVE
opinion is that he believes that the duration of the ray's path has lengthened.
But this would be confusing the verb SEE with the verb BE.
The physical
phenomenon of this reflection of the light ray has a single Proper Time (tp).
For the ground-fixed observer (SRF) its
Rating will
depend on the speed of the wagon. But, we repeat: We should not interpret that
the phenomenon that occurs within the Mobile Recency System (SRM) when observed
from the Fixed Reference System (SRF) has been transformed.
"THE METAPHOR OF THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY"
We now
include a drawing that we devised and published in one of our studios to make a
simile with the erroneous acceptance of the Theory of Relativity.
The drawing
wants to materialize and represent the vision in a deformed mirror of the image
that I intend to SEE. It is intended to be a comparison with the acceptance of
the fallacies preached by the Theory of Special Relativity.
Following this theory makes us look in a convex mirror that distorts our ideas just as it would our image. We must look at ourselves in a flat mirror to really see our image and not believe in the “miracle” of transmutations. It is about SEEING correctly and not attributing to BEING what you SEE.
(In the
previously mentioned case of the train car, it is its movement and its
displacement that are equivalent to the concave mirror)
2.- THE ERROR
OF TRYING TO FIND A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO IDENTICAL AND SIMULTANEOUS EVENTS
In the
aforementioned book by A. Einstein, in one of his epigraphs he exposes the
topic of: The relativity of simultaneity. To which we criticize and say: “the
error of the relativity of simultaneity.”
In the
present study we criticize the conclusion drawn from the mental experiment
presented by A. Einstein, in which he associates relative movements with events
that are SIMULTANEOUS.
The WRONG
conclusion that A. Einstein draws from this experiment, we will see, is the
basis of the fallacy that we will discuss in the next issue.
We comment
below on the mental experiment with which he intends to justify that two events
that occur simultaneously ARE different depending on whether they are observed
from the (SRF) or from the (SRM). We insist on stating that they WILL look
different, but this does not mean that they change the quality of
SIMULTANEOUSNESS that they have at the beginning of their production.
He asks in his book:
“Two events, for example, two lightning bolts
(A) and (B), which are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, are
also
simultaneous with respect to the train?”
(Refers to
the embankment located on the tracks where the train car circulates)
And he goes
on to say:
“…When we say
that rays (A) and (B) are simultaneous with respect to the paths, we mean that
the rays of light that leave places (A) and (B) meet at the midpoint (M) of the
section of road (A)-(B). Now, do events (A) and (B) also correspond in places
(A) and (B) on the train?
In order to
better understand this question that A. Einstein asks, we have designed a
drawing that represents a diagram of the mental experiment and its result.
The following
drawing presents three phases of the wagon's progress. In it we make appear the
two LIGHTNING FLASHES (A) and (B) and the RAYS OF LIGHT (A') and (B') that
emerge from it
In this
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.
As it appears
in the drawing, and based on Einstein's conclusion, the person who is on the
ground perceives the arrival of the light from the two simultaneous rays at the
same moment, while the person who is riding the train perceives it sooner. the
ray (B) than the ray (A). With this argument he affirms that the phenomenon of
SIMULTANEOUSNESS IS different contemplated from the (SRF) than contemplated
from the (SRM)
Here he makes
the mistake that we have already mentioned and that the phenomenon is not
deformed. In this case the SIMULTANEOUSNESS of the two events.
We can add that the relative movement to
which the physical phenomenon is subjected deforms the VISION of the quality of
the event. But the reality is that a SIMULTANEOUS circumstance (or let's call
it phenomenon) has occurred. And this is what the person fixed on the ground
(SRF) will judge.
Let us note
that we are now presenting an inverse case to the one we had presented in the
previous issue. There the phenomenon had occurred inside the car and it was the
person who was on the outside of it (SRF) who SAW the phenomenon deformed,
while the person who was inside (SRM) was the one who could really appreciate
the phenomenon.
In the case
that we are now discussing, the event occurs outside the carriage and it is the
person inside it who WOULD see the SIMULTANEOUSNESS of the event distorted. It
is the person who is outside (SRF) who can appreciate the circumstance of
simultaneity as it IS.
Taking into
account that the relative movement considered in the aforementioned mental
experiments is nothing more than a disturbing effect of the VISION of the
phenomenon, as we have seen we can consider examples where the quality of
SIMULTANEOUSNESS of two events can occur both outside (SRF) as within the
(SRM).
We give
another example of a SIMULTANEOUSNESS phenomenon in which this circumstance
occurs within the (SRM). We have devised a thought experiment, with relative
movements between the train car and a fixed observer outside the car, and where
the event of SIMULTANEOUSNESS occurs inside the car.
The drawing represents three phases of advance of a wagon that goes at a straight and constant speed.
In the center
of the car there is a person holding a dough in each of his hands. The masses
have equal weight. Outside the car there is a fixed observer on the ground
(SRF).
Due to the
movement of the wagon, at the moment that the person inside passes in front of
the observer who is on the ground, that person 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 car. In the last stage represented by the
drawing, the masses have already arrived on the ground. This is what the
observer WOULD SEE (SRF)
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.
The (SRF) WILL SEE the fall in each of the
stages, while the (SRM) will consider a free fall.
It is evident
that the SIMULTANEOUS fall of the two masses has not been transformed for the
(SRF). YOU WILL SEE it deformed. It is the same thing that we had commented on
the phenomenon of reflection in the mirror of the ray of light.
3.- THE
PARADOX OF TRANSMUTATION
To help
interpret and understand the metaphorical meaning given to the title of this
issue, we transcribe the following definition and explanation: “PARADOX: Fact
or saying contrary to logic.” “TRANSMUTATION: It involves the change of atomic
nuclei. “It changes one element into another.”
The physicist A. Einstein, in his confusion
of SEEING with BEING when dealing with the Relativity of Simultaneity, believes
that an event produced in a (SRM) should not be IDENTIFY from an (SRF). And, in
his aforementioned book, he mentions the following statement:
“The time
needed for a process with respect to the wagon cannot be equated to the
duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment”
And, here the
nonsense or the Paradox of Transmutation is born.
This is where
we say that his statement is equivalent to the “miracle of transmutation. It
does not admit that it LOOKS different but that it IS different.
Now he seems
to forget the First Principle of relativity. He now speaks of “a” process “and
not of the laws that govern natural phenomena. The confusion that he makes on
the issue of the “relativity of simultaneity” makes him interpret the vision
from the (SRF) of the events that occurred in the (SRM) differently.
To finish, we
only need to remember the well-known “twin brother paradox”, in which the twin
brother who stays on Earth spends more time than the astronaut brother.
Physics books call it a “paradox” when they
want to justify the theory of special relativity and not find any logic to
support it. We have read in one of these books that he proposes as a hypothesis
that the interstellar rocket makes several revolutions before returning to
Earth. What a joke! Let's keep in mind that the Theory of Special Relativity
considers only rectilinear movements. Here, to resolve this paradox and using
mental experiments, we can say that: the twin brother who is on Earth, with an
astronomical telescope, SEES the course of the space rocket on which his
astronaut brother is mounted. But this SEE does not imply a modification of the
time or life cycle of each of the brothers.
In a future
study we will give another grouping of essays.
