INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this essay is to highlight
some erroneous claims regarding the validity of the theory of relativity
proposed by A. Einstein.
The worst part of this anomaly is that
these erroneous claims are spread using the latest dissemination tools, such as
AI, to perpetuate these fallacies.
We intend to denounce and remind readers of
this invalidity by drawing on a summary of the critical essays we have been
publishing for some time.
SELECTIONS OF INCORRECT AI ANSWERS
Below, we present a few excerpts of the
information obtained from AI when queried about the validity of A. Einstein's
theory of relativity.
ANSWERS:
- “Yes, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is completely
valid and remains one of the pillars of modern physics. It has
successfully withstood more than a century of empirical testing.”
- “General Relativity: Explains that gravity is not an invisible
force, but a distortion of space and time caused by the mass of objects.”
- “Everyday Technology: The GPS systems in your mobile phone
wouldn't work correctly without applying relativity. Satellites move at
high speeds (which slows down their clocks due to special relativity) and
are subject to weaker Earth gravity than we are (which speeds them up due
to general relativity). Engineers adjust for this time difference.”
CRITICISMS OF THE PREVIOUS AI ANSWERS
We offer the following critiques of the
three points mentioned above:
- POINT 1: As we will demonstrate in
the following two points, it has NOT successfully withstood more
than a century of empirical testing.
- POINT 2: In several essays
published some time ago on our blog, we already exposed the fallacies
contained within the empirical evidence cited by AI. Among them, we cited:
“The Thought Experiment on Light Deflection: A Contradiction by A.
Einstein” and “The Deformation of Space: An Error by A. Einstein.”
We will also address the topic of “moving clocks,” which we published in
our booklet on Amazon titled “The Errors of A. Einstein: A Brief
Summary.”
We now transcribe a summary of the
aforementioned essays.
OUR ESSAY TITLED: “THOUGHT EXPERIMENT ON
THE DEFLECTION OF LIGHT: A CONTRADICTION BY A. EINSTEIN”
Summarizing the argument of this essay, we
state the following:
Initially, A. Einstein attributed the
deflection of starlight to the curvature of space caused by gravity. Later, he
abandoned the fallacy that space deformation was involved in the deflection of
light and seemed to attempt to rectify his error by stating that the deflection
of starlight is caused directly by gravity, without “space” acting as a
mediator.
Finally, he cast doubt on whether a
gravitational field must even exist for the deflection of light to occur.
JUSTIFYING WHY WE SAY HE “CASTS DOUBT”
In the book titled “The Evolution of
Physics”, by A. Einstein and Leopold Infeld, we find that the authors offer
another justification for the deflection of light through a thought experiment.
Given this justification, we ask: Did A. Einstein change his opinion on the
cause of the deflection of starlight and abandon the fallacy of the “warping of
space”?...
SUMMARY OF THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT IN THE
AFOREMENTIONED BOOK USED TO SUPPORT THE CAUSES OF LIGHT DEFLECTION
As a thought experiment, they propose using
an elevator pulled by a rope attached to its ceiling, which imparts an
accelerated motion. They attempt to equate the result of this acceleration with
the action of the force of gravity.
(NOTE: We already demonstrated in one of
our previous essays that this equivalence is a fallacy.)
In the left wall of the elevator, there is
a small hole through which a beam of light enters. This light beam strikes the
right wall at a different height relative to the elevator floor than that of
the entry hole. This is what an observer standing outside the elevator would
see. From this observation, they deduce that the beam of light has bent as a
result of a force similar to gravity…
This thought experiment seems deeply flawed
to us. It describes the movement of the elevator, not the nature of the light
beam. Let us recall what we have repeated many times in our previous essays:
they confuse the verb TO SEE with the verb TO BE.
(NOTE: We caution the reader not to
confuse this elevator thought experiment, applied to the bending of a light
beam, with the elevator thought experiment described by A. Einstein in his book
“Relativity: The Special and the General Theory”, where he attempts to pass off
the fallacy of general relativity.)
Continuing from this discussion, and
drawing upon another of our essays, we denounce the invalidity of the empirical
evidence touted by AI.
OUR ESSAY TITLED: “THE DEFORMATION OF
SPACE: AN ERROR BY A. EINSTEIN”
We transcribe excerpts of this essay in
italics:
Regarding the “deformation of space,” a
historian tells us the following:
“A. Einstein, contradicting Newton, said
that gravity was not a force that pulled on things, but rather that things move
not when pulled, but when pushed. By this he meant that if an object falls
toward another, it is not because of an attractive force, but because the
larger object curves space like a whirlpool in a bathtub.”
The text continues:
“In Einstein’s universe,” the researcher
continues, “space and time are distorted by gravity. The Earth distorts the
space around it very slightly due to its mass.”
The researcher further notes:
“Researchers believed that the Sun, due
to its gravity, would curve space in such a way that this phenomenon would
become noticeable in the perceived position of starlight.”
(NOTE: Regarding the historical account of
the experiments conducted to demonstrate the validity of A. Einstein's thesis,
the reader can consult the web article titled “How the General Theory of
Relativity Was Proven”. The image provided is the one appearing in that
source.)
Difficulties in Recording the Phenomenon
Accounts show that the primary difficulty
in observing this phenomenon was that intense sunlight prevented starlight
deflection from being seen or photographed. Researchers had to wait for solar
eclipses, which occurred periodically in different regions of the Earth.
Several expeditions were organized to coincide with these eclipses.
THE FALLACY OF THE FALSE CAUSE: A
BLUNDER
In these expeditions—unless a historian
proves otherwise—we believe a fundamental blunder was committed:
Instead of investigating the CAUSE,
they merely documented an EFFECT.
With this error, they contributed little to
science. Even if the EFFECT were photographed, it added little to the
validity of Einstein's thesis. For this reason, we refer to such an experiment
as “THE FALLACY OF THE FALSE CAUSE.”
OTHER CRITICISMS OF THE EXPERIMENT
Beyond failing to achieve its required
scientific objective, the dubious results obtained from the photographic plates
were also criticized.
The renowned physicist Stephen Hawking
stated: “The results obtained by Eddington were a case of knowing in advance
the outcome they wanted to get.”
The expedition team to the island of
Príncipe has also been accused of data manipulation. A subtle point of
contention is that these experiments were conducted shortly after the end of
World War I, amidst nationalistic pressures and lingering geopolitical
resentments.
POINT 3: EVERYDAY TECHNOLOGY
Contrary to what AI claims, we should not
attribute the functioning of everyday technology to the absurdity of time
dilation. Doing so muddles concepts and sets science against basic logic.
Here, we examine GPS systems (as cited by
AI) and a report regarding atomic clock experiments.
We state at the outset that we do not claim
to be experts in these technical implementations; however, we will subject
their operational claims to logical examination under the tenets of relativity
theory.
In this critique, we consider two
approaches:
- A = As the transmission and
exchange of a message
(GPS) - B = As information modified while
transported in circular motion (Coriolis Acceleration).
We describe these two approaches below:
A.- AS THE TRANSMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF
A MESSAGE
Consider the exchange of messages or images
between two transmission and reception stations:
To interpret what we illustrate with this
diagram, we offer the following explanation:
- Inside a train car moving at a certain velocity (
),
there is a pendulum clock. - The train car illustrates that the clock inside moves along
with it (a clock in motion).
- The pendulum clock illustrates how the setup sends a message
(e.g., elapsed time).
- An observer stationary on the ground acts as the receiver of
the message.
The time reading received by the ground
observer in their final viewing differs from the reading received in the first.
How can anyone support the absurd notion
that this observed time difference occurs because "time has
dilated"?! The difference in time shown by the pendulum clock is simply
due to the duration of its spatial displacement.
B.- AS INFORMATION VARIED THROUGH
TRANSPORT IN CIRCULAR MOTION (CORIOLIS ACCELERATION)
We turn now to a potential argument
regarding the difference in time readings on moving clocks.
Using all our previous blog essays as a
"protective shield" against the fallacy of "time dilation,"
we seek an argument that might explain these clock differences while preserving
the honesty of researchers.
To this end, we quote the following passage
in italics:
“In 1971, Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating
placed four cesium atomic clocks aboard commercial flights. They flew around
the world twice: once eastward and once westward. Upon returning to the
laboratory and comparing them to ground-based reference clocks, they matched
Einstein's predictions exactly!”
PLEASE NOTE! Stating that "they
matched Einstein's predictions exactly" means they recorded an
EFFECT rather than discovering a CAUSE. The same issue arises here as in
the starlight deflection experiment.
The text further notes:
“Their clocks ran 38 microseconds per
day faster than those on Earth.”
When dealing with such infinitesimal
fractions of time, we ask again: Could this be another case of what Stephen
Hawking noted regarding Eddington's light deflection test—that "the
results obtained were a matter of knowing in advance the results that were
desired"?
A SUGGESTION FOR RESEARCHERS
The physical manner in which this
experiment was conducted may shed light on these microsecond variances.
Without delving into complex theoretical
formalisms—leaving this suggestion to experimental researchers—we ask: During
these flights around the Earth, could the clocks aboard the aircraft have been
affected by what mechanical engineers study as “Coriolis Acceleration”?
Could this allow us to discard the concept of time dilation entirely? We do not
state this dogmatically, but offer it as a constructive suggestion.
To briefly define Coriolis Acceleration:
“Coriolis acceleration is the acceleration
experienced by an object moving within a rotating frame of reference. It
manifests only when the object moves relative to that rotating frame.”
In this case, the atomic clock is the
moving object, and the aircraft circling the rotating Earth serves as the
rotating reference frame.
Let researchers evaluate this possibility,
but let us move past the fallacy of time dilation!
THE MUON EXPERIMENT FALLACY
We suggest our readers consult one of our
recent essays titled: “The Muon Test Fallacy and the Speed of Atomic
Particles.”
