THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY - A MISINTERPRETATION THAT LEADS TO NONSENSE

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.