In this essay we criticize the Theory of Special Relativity and the Theory of General Relativity of A. Einstein
The study is divided into the following three parts:
A.- Bases established by A. Einstein to argue his theory of special relativity
B.- Contradictions of A. Einstein in his theory of special relativity, with respect to the bases that he had established in another book
C.- Contradictions of A. Einstein in his theory of general relativity.- His error in the principle of equivalence
The texts transcribed from A. Einstein's books will be written between quotation marks and in italics.
A.- BASIS ESTABLISHED BY A. EINSTEIN TO ARGUMENT HIS THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY
We discuss the basic principles that A. Einstein uses to argue his Theory of Special Relativity and that later, we will see that he contradicts them.
1.-INERTIAL REFERENCE SYSTEMS
We remind the reader of a basic concept that appears in the theory of relative motions.
Let us imagine in sidereal space a body that is moving relative to another with a certain uniform and rectilinear speed. By definition, we will say that an Inertial Reference System (SRI) has been established between these bodies.
We will designate the body that we assume moves with respect to the other with the name Mobile Reference System (MRS). The other body, which we will take as a reference or as the origin of the movement, will be designated as the Fixed Reference System (SRF).
A further step will be to consider that these “bodies” are containers of physical phenomena, with their corresponding laws that govern them.
2.- THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY.- GALILEO'S PRINCIPLE.
In order to observe the contradictions that the Theory of General Relativity presents, by attempting to include accelerated movements, we must begin our essay by stating the Principle of Relativity.
Taken from A. Einstein's book titled: “On the theory of special and general relativity” (Page 18) the first Principle of relativity says:
“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).
Just as a comment we cite as an example that: Galileo Galilei already announced this principle in 1632, using the mental experiment of the hold of a ship in uniform and rectilinear motion)
Knowing the concepts of relative movements and what is understood by inertial reference systems, we will be in a position to understand the answer to the question: what do we think A. Einstein intended to justify in his theory of relativity?
We find the answer in his book: “The meaning of relativity” by A. Einstein (Page 38). There the author notes the validity of Inertial Reference Systems (IRS) to be able to examine and measure the laws of nature in the same way and with the same results in each of them. Using mathematical and non-physical terms, we could say that the (SRI) are reference coordinate systems with respect to others.
On the aforementioned page of that book the following explanation appears:
“…there are Cartesian coordinate systems, the so-called inertial, with respect to which the laws of Mechanics (more generally, the laws of Physics) have the simplest form. We can infer the validity of the following theorem: if K is an inertial system, any other system k', endowed with uniform motion and without rotation with respect to K, is also an inertial system and the laws of nature are consistent with each other when use any inertial system to express them. We will call this statement the “principle of special relativity.”
In short: in an Inertial Reference System, the same natural phenomena develop and are conditioned by the same laws.
B.- CONTRADICTIONS OF A. EINSTEIN IN HIS THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY WITH RESPECT TO THE FOUNDATIONS HE HAD ESTABLISHED IN ANOTHER BOOK
Everything that we have exposed in “part A” of this essay and preached by A. Einstein himself, we will now see what he denies. It enters the dark tunnel of confusing the use of the verb SEE with the verb BE, an error that we have already commented on in our previous essays.
This confusion consists of the fact that, just because there is a relative movement between a Mobile Reference System (SRM) with respect to a Fixed Reference System (SRF), natural phenomena and their laws are modified. And this is the confusion that we have exposed.
The aforementioned Physicist says that physical phenomena and their laws ARE different when in reality, to be consistent with his previous statements, he should understand that they LOOK different. The statement that they ARE different contradicts their previous arguments that we have presented.
Next, we will comment on some of our previous essays in which we already warned of the error of confusing the use of the verb SEE with the verb BE.
(NOTE: The reader can consult in our Blog the topics that we are going to briefly summarize. All the topics that we criticize appear in A. Einstein's book titled “On the theory of special and general relativity)
1.- THE LONGATION OF THE REFLECTION TIME OF A RAY OF LIGHT IN THE MIRROR OF A TRAIN CAR CIRCULATING AT A CONSTANT AND STRAIGHT SPEED.
We show that the (SRF) VE extends the duration of the longest light ray. But it is not that time has dilated as some physics books argue. You SEE the extension of time at the speed of light, added by the speed of the train itself. “Added” but not dilated.
2.- THE SHORTENING OF THE MEASURING BAR
In one of the paragraphs of the aforementioned book, it presents a length measuring bar on top of a mobile train car. And it says that the bar is shortened with respect to (SRF), simply because of its relative movement. By considering the verb BE you come to admit the nonsense that the measuring bar has become shorter. The bar has not been shortened, it LOOKS shorter because the end of the bar travels on the car against the vision of the (SRF)
3.- THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEOUSNESS
In another paragraph of the book he raises the “relativity of simultaneity.” Due to the same confusion already mentioned, he manages to admit the nonsense, which we ironically call “the miracle of transmutation.” The matter has changed state.
(Note: In one of our previous essays we explained where the trap lies to justify such an error of trying to destroy the simultaneity of two events and consider them different)
4.- THE PARADOX OF THE TWIN BROTHERS
The same books that deal with the subject of the theory of special relativity already classify as a “paradox” that the astronaut twin brother, when he returns to Earth, finds his twin brother older.
Confusing the verb SEE with the verb BE turns the story into a science fiction story
5.- THE PHASE LAG IN CLOCKS WITH RELATIVE MOVEMENTS
Another issue with the same justification that we have been exposing is found in the fictitious phase difference between clocks with relative movements. We could combine this nonsense with that of the paradox of the twin brothers. To justify the nonsense, dubious publications appear that try to validate it, mentioning experiments of dubious authorship and accuracy.
6.- LORENTZ'S TRANSFORMATIONS
These transformations of the variables of a formula do not occur as described by A. Einstein in his aforementioned book. The variables involved are not transformed. We demonstrate in one of our essays what they consist of, how to obtain them and what they LOOK like.
C.- CONTRADICTIONS OF A. EINTEIN IN HIS THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.- HIS ERROR IN THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE
This third part of this essay will serve to criticize the error of wanting to include accelerated movements in the fulfillment of physical phenomena and their corresponding laws.
In this third part we will distinguish two themes. One topic is focused on demonstrating non-compliance with the laws of natural phenomena if we intend to use accelerated speeds in relative movements. We dedicated the other topic to speculating about the possible erroneous arguments that the aforementioned Physicist used to reach such confusion of ideas.
1.- SUMMARY OF THE ELEVATOR MENTAL EXPERIMENT
With the thought experiment of the elevator, A. Einstein intends to justify the extension of his theory of relativity to reference systems that move with accelerated movements. We will see that this is a chimera
(NOTE: In our essay titled: “Theory of general relativity. - A science fiction story” the reader can read the entire elevator thought experiment” that we have transcribed from A. Einstein's book: “On the theory of relativity special and general)
A summary of the approach to this thought experiment, as described by A. Einstein, is as follows:
A box, which we will identify as an elevator and place in sidereal space, is pulled upwards, with a uniformly accelerated speed: ∆(v), by a rope attached to the roof of the box. Inside this elevator there is a person who is a passenger. This person notices the pressure exerted by the elevator floor because the traction force exerted by the aforementioned rope is transmitted throughout the elevator casing to the elevator floor.
The following figure is intended to signify the elevator thought experiment.
2.- CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY A.EINSTEIN FROM HIS MENTAL ELEVATOR EXPERIMENT
If we read the aforementioned mental experiment in its entirety we can make the following summary: Since the accelerated movement that the rope gives to the elevator causes in the person who is inside it a SENSATION equivalent to that caused by a gravitational field, this allows him to extend his theory to accelerated relative movements. We transcribe some final pieces of his conclusions: “But how does the man in the box judge the process?”… … ”Based on his knowledge of the gravitational field, as we discussed in the last section, the man will conclude that he is, along with the box, within a fairly constant gravitational field.” ..."So we have good reasons to extend the principle of relativity to reference bodies that accelerate with respect to each other, and thus a powerful argument has been won in favor of a postulate of generalized relativity." With these statements it seems that everything would fit to accept the expansion of the aforementioned theory. However, a deeper analysis will show us that this approach has very little consistency. It is a fallacy and the laws subject to natural phenomena could not be fulfilled as we discussed in our previous chapters.
3.- AN INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT EQUIVALENCE
Reading the latest statements that A. Einstein makes in the elevator thought experiment, we wonder if we can call EQUIVALENTS the traction force generated by the elevator rope through the casing to the floor of the elevator and a hypothetical gravitational field. We believe that in the sense that A. Einstein uses the similarity of the aforementioned effects, the word EQUIVALENT is not correct. The aforementioned Physicist uses this similarity to indicate that the two CAUSES produce the same EFFECT. They produce a sensation of pressure on the feet of the traveler who is inside the elevator. We say that the word EQUIVALENCE is not correct because its extension limits it to a single type of EFFECT. The equivalent word must be more demanding. It must require that ONE CAUSE can be replaced by another giving the same EFFECT or result. And this is what does not happen in the EQUIVALENCE that A. Einstein presents in the story of his elevator thought experiment. Admitting the meaning of EQUIVALENTS as he presents it, is as absurd as justifying that a pot with boiling water inside and an electric stove plugged into the outlet are EQUIVALENT, because the two utensils give off heat.
4.- THE CONFUSION OF A. EINTEIN.- THE WRONG EQUIVALENCE OF ONE FORCE FOR ANOTHER OF A DIFFERENT SIGN
Now we will try to find out what A. Einstein's confusion was that led him to preach an error.
He says that the traction force of the rope and the fictitious gravitational field are equivalent, because they make the same SENSATION perceived in the feet of the passenger in the elevator. However, he forgets that the important thing is to determine how the forces he says are involved ACT. And, if we take this into account, we must consider that two different types of force actually ACT and, therefore, we cannot speak of EQUIVALENCE.
We must consider that in the aforementioned experiment a Contact force and an Attraction force intervene. The Contact Force can be Traction or Push.
The following figure aims to expose the ACTIONS of these two types of forces:
We can transfer the performance of the two types of force: Traction Force and Attraction Force, to the elevator floor of the thought experiment.
The following drawing aims to simulate the elevator pulled by a rope that imposes a uniformly accelerated speed.
∆(v), and the forces that are said to act on the feet of the traveler inside it.
In the image we can see that the traction force exerted by the rope on the floor of the elevator through its casing and a hypothetical force of attraction due to a hypothetical gravitational field are not at all EQUIVALENT. Using terms from Physics, these forces are vectors of different signs and we cannot quantify them with the same value. Their EQUIVALENCE is not useful for us to exchange them in the formulas of the laws that govern natural phenomena.
5.- INCAPACITY OF REFERENCE SYSTEMS WITH ACCELERATED RELATIVE MOVEMENTS
Reference Systems with accelerated relative movements, unlike Inertial Reference Systems, cause displacements of the mass and, consequently, the laws of classical mechanics are not applicable.
As an example we can take that of a train car in a phase of its movement in which it is accelerating. Its uniform increase in speed: ∆(v) causes the mass (m) inside to move from the front wall of the car to its rear wall. At this point, the dough will be “stuck” to the front wall without being able to move.
This image can also serve to highlight that there is no EQUIVALENCE between the gravitational field that operates throughout the carriage and its contents, and the traction force caused by the engine of the train carriage, in a direction perpendicular to that caused by the previous force . The acting forces cause two different CAUSES. These are attachment to the ground and accelerated movement. Physically speaking, they are vectors that have different directions. They are linearly independent. Not EQUIUVALENT.
Continuing with accelerated movements we can also use as an example a pendulum anchored inside the car. If we assume that when the movement of the wagon begins, the ball of the pendulum is near the front wall of the wagon, as the speed accelerates, in the end the said ball will be near the rear wall of the wagon and from there it will no longer be able to move. . The law of the pendulum will not be fulfilled.
The following figure aims to expose this circumstance.
This tells us that accelerated movements do not allow include them within natural phenomena and the laws that govern them. A pendulum clock inside this accelerated car (SRM) could not indicate the passing time as a pendulum clock located in its response (SRF) would do.
6.- SPECULATION ABOUT A. EINSTEIN'S ERROR IN HIS PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE
With the understanding that we are going to express our own opinion, we are going to speculate regarding A. Einstein's error in trying to establish an EQUIVALENCE between a Traction Force and an Attraction Force corresponding to a fictitious gravitational field, and we propose the following:
In his book titled “On the Theory of Special and General Relativity,” the chapter in which he describes the elevator thought experiment begins with the following title:
“The equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass as an argument in favor of the postulate of general relativity”
This distinction between two types of dough that behave in the same way is the beginning that causes confusion.
In the aforementioned book he starts from the concept that a body has two types of mass. The inertial mass and the gravitational mass. After using a twisted tour of concepts and arguments, on page 60 of the book, he comes up with a formula, of dubious validity and without any type of demonstration, to try to justify that the quotient between the Inertial Mass and the Gravitational Mass is worth “1” , and from here he draws the conclusion:
“The Gravitational Mass and Inertial Mass of a body are equal”
Regarding this statement we make the following reasoning:
As he started from making the distinction between inertial mass and gravitational mass, by applying the “mysterious formula and saying that “they are equal” he is referring to the fact that they are numerically equal, but we must understand that he maintains the idea that there are two different types of mass.
In this statement we perceive that it rather refers to a numerical equality and NOT to “which is the same.” In other words, it does not refer to congenital equality or material identity, and this is his big mistake. He considers the existence of two types of dough.
We believe that: for all bodies there is only one type of mass. This mass behaves, or reacts, differently depending on the type of force to which it is subjected. The forces are the CAUSES and the behavior of the mass is the EFFECT. These forces are of two types and their BEHAVIOR on the mass is totally different. Let us remember that we classify them as: Force of Attraction and Force of Traction or contact.
In summary, we believe the following:
By considering that it is not forces but masses that act, it distorts the meaning of the experiment. By omitting the forces as operating factors in the experiment, it makes them equivalent to each other. That is, a Traction Force equivalent to a Force of Attraction and here is the error.
3.- AN INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT EQUIVALENCE
Reading the latest statements that A. Einstein makes in the elevator thought experiment, we wonder if we can call EQUIVALENTS the traction force generated by the elevator rope through the casing to the floor of the elevator and a hypothetical gravitational field. We believe that in the sense that A. Einstein uses the similarity of the aforementioned effects, the word EQUIVALENT is not correct. The aforementioned Physicist uses this similarity to indicate that the two CAUSES produce the same EFFECT. They produce a sensation of pressure on the feet of the traveler who is inside the elevator. We say that the word EQUIVALENCE is not correct because its extension limits it to a single type of EFFECT. The equivalent word must be more demanding. It must require that ONE CAUSE can be replaced by another giving the same EFFECT or result. And this is what does not happen in the EQUIVALENCE that A. Einstein presents in the story of his elevator thought experiment. Admitting the meaning of EQUIVALENTS as he presents it, is as absurd as justifying that a pot with boiling water inside and an electric stove plugged into the outlet are EQUIVALENT, because the two utensils give off heat.
4.- THE CONFUSION OF A. EINTEIN.- THE WRONG EQUIVALENCE OF ONE FORCE FOR ANOTHER OF A DIFFERENT SIGN
Now we will try to find out what A. Einstein's confusion was that led him to preach an error.
He says that the traction force of the rope and the fictitious gravitational field are equivalent, because they make the same SENSATION perceived in the feet of the passenger in the elevator. However, he forgets that the important thing is to determine how the forces he says are involved ACT. And, if we take this into account, we must consider that two different types of force actually ACT and, therefore, we cannot speak of EQUIVALENCE.
We must consider that in the aforementioned experiment a Contact force and an Attraction force intervene. The Contact Force can be Traction or Push.
The following figure aims to expose the ACTIONS of these two types of forces:
We can transfer the performance of the two types of force: Traction Force and Attraction Force, to the elevator floor of the thought experiment.
The following drawing aims to simulate the elevator pulled by a rope that imposes a uniformly accelerated speed.
∆(v), and the forces that are said to act on the feet of the traveler inside it.
In the image we can see that the traction force exerted by the rope on the floor of the elevator through its casing and a hypothetical force of attraction due to a hypothetical gravitational field are not at all EQUIVALENT. Using terms from Physics, these forces are vectors of different signs and we cannot quantify them with the same value. Their EQUIVALENCE is not useful for us to exchange them in the formulas of the laws that govern natural phenomena.
5.- INCAPACITY OF REFERENCE SYSTEMS WITH ACCELERATED RELATIVE MOVEMENTS
Reference Systems with accelerated relative movements, unlike Inertial Reference Systems, cause displacements of the mass and, consequently, the laws of classical mechanics are not applicable.
As an example we can take that of a train car in a phase of its movement in which it is accelerating. Its uniform increase in speed: ∆(v) causes the mass (m) inside to move from the front wall of the car to its rear wall. At this point, the dough will be “stuck” to the front wall without being able to move.
This image can also serve to highlight that there is no EQUIVALENCE between the gravitational field that operates throughout the carriage and its contents, and the traction force caused by the engine of the train carriage, in a direction perpendicular to that caused by the previous force . The acting forces cause two different CAUSES. These are attachment to the ground and accelerated movement. Physically speaking, they are vectors that have different directions. They are linearly independent. Not EQUIUVALENT.
Continuing with accelerated movements we can also use as an example a pendulum anchored inside the car. If we assume that when the movement of the wagon begins, the ball of the pendulum is near the front wall of the wagon, as the speed accelerates, in the end the said ball will be near the rear wall of the wagon and from there it will no longer be able to move. . The law of the pendulum will not be fulfilled.
The following figure aims to expose this circumstance.
This tells us that accelerated movements do not allow include them within natural phenomena and the laws that govern them. A pendulum clock inside this accelerated car (SRM) could not indicate the passing time as a pendulum clock located in its response (SRF) would do.
6.- SPECULATION ABOUT A. EINSTEIN'S ERROR IN HIS PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE
With the understanding that we are going to express our own opinion, we are going to speculate regarding A. Einstein's error in trying to establish an EQUIVALENCE between a Traction Force and an Attraction Force corresponding to a fictitious gravitational field, and we propose the following:
In his book titled “On the Theory of Special and General Relativity,” the chapter in which he describes the elevator thought experiment begins with the following title:
“The equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass as an argument in favor of the postulate of general relativity”
This distinction between two types of dough that behave in the same way is the beginning that causes confusion.
In the aforementioned book he starts from the concept that a body has two types of mass. The inertial mass and the gravitational mass. After using a twisted tour of concepts and arguments, on page 60 of the book, he comes up with a formula, of dubious validity and without any type of demonstration, to try to justify that the quotient between the Inertial Mass and the Gravitational Mass is worth “1” , and from here he draws the conclusion:
“The Gravitational Mass and Inertial Mass of a body are equal”
Regarding this statement we make the following reasoning:
As he started from making the distinction between inertial mass and gravitational mass, by applying the “mysterious formula and saying that “they are equal” he is referring to the fact that they are numerically equal, but we must understand that he maintains the idea that there are two different types of mass.
In this statement we perceive that it rather refers to a numerical equality and NOT to “which is the same.” In other words, it does not refer to congenital equality or material identity, and this is his big mistake. He considers the existence of two types of dough.
We believe that: for all bodies there is only one type of mass. This mass behaves, or reacts, differently depending on the type of force to which it is subjected. The forces are the CAUSES and the behavior of the mass is the EFFECT. These forces are of two types and their BEHAVIOR on the mass is totally different. Let us remember that we classify them as: Force of Attraction and Force of Traction or contact.
In summary, we believe the following:
By considering that it is not forces but masses that act, it distorts the meaning of the experiment. By omitting the forces as operating factors in the experiment, it makes them equivalent to each other. That is, a Traction Force equivalent to a Force of Attraction and here is the error.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario