THEORY OF RELATIVITY - ANALYSIS OF A PARADOX

PRESENTATION

Some treatises on the Theory of Relativity explain the story of the “Twin Brothers” saying the following: “In two twin brothers, one of them is an astronaut. The astronaut leaves for a sidereal flight in which he reaches a speed close to that of light. Returning to Earth he finds that his twin brother has aged much older than he has.

The following figure tries to represent this circunstance:

                                         Figure 1

                 

The drawing represents the beginning of the journey, the journey, and the return. In this third phase, the older brother who has remained on Earth is represented. In the aforementioned books this nonsense is called "the paradox of the twin brothers"

Looking for the definition of paradox, we have found as a definition: "Done or said apparently contrary to logic." It is curious that, considering the meaning of this word, they still dare to maintain science fiction arguments that seek to validate such a paradox, thus protecting the false theory of time dilation. Next, we explain the reason for such an outrage to logic.

 

GENESIS OF FOOLISHNESS

In A. Einstein's book entitled: "On the Theory of Special and General Relativity", he quotes a train car that runs with uniform speed and rectilinear, and then makes the following statement:

“The time that a process needs in relation to the wagon cannot be equal to the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment”

This statement generates the fallacy of time dilation and the other nonsense that we see written about the Theory of Relativity.

In this statement we find three errors:

A logical error in the statement that appears in the aforementioned book

A contradiction between two statements that appear in his own cited book

An erroneous interpretation in different treatises on the subject of the aforementioned theory, to try to validate nonsense.

 

We briefly describe these errors below.

 

AN ERROR OF LOGIC:

In the quoted statement he uses the word PROCESS.

We understand and define as a process:

"The occurrence of two or more Events linked to each other and keeping a certain sequence in their realization and that requires a certain execution time"

When mentioning in the aforementioned statement "the time that a process requires", this time is INHERENT to the process. It will serve to identify it and we will call it Own Time of the Process (tp). And you can't have another when looking at it from outside the train car. Or from different situations in outer space.

Two different Proper Times imply two different Processes

A PROCESS is not transformed by the mere fact of contemplating it from outside the car

A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN TWO STATEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN THE CITED BOOK

In the statement that we have transcribed from the aforementioned book, "the time that a process needs in relation to the wagon, no...," a contradiction appears.

This affirmation has been tried to express it in some books by means of the following drawing:

                                            Figure 2

                  

In this drawing appears one of the PROCESSES, of which the referred affirmation speaks. It is the one followed by a beam of light emitted inside the car. This ray is reflected in a mirror located on the roof of it. From this they deduce that the time that the beam takes to go to the mirror, reflect in it and return to the starting point where the person who fired it will be different for this person from the one who is fixed on the embankment of the train.

But… in another part of the book it says:

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

What are we left with?... This statement is against the other statement that says:

"The time that a process needs in relation to the wagon, no...".

If we consider the person who is fixed on the ground of the embankment as the Fixed Reference System (SRF) and the PROCESS is developed in the environment of a Mobile Reference System (SRM)… “then the natural phenomena take place with respect to the (SRM ) according to the same general laws as with respect to the (SRF).”

And therefore, the observer outside the wagon should not experience any difference to the phenomenon that occurs inside the wagon. This is the contradiction that we announced.

 

A WRONG INTERPRETATION TO TRY TO VALIDATE A FOOLISHNESS.

 To improve the interpretation of what we want to explain, we propose to use another drawing. Like the previous drawing, Figure 3 means the movement of the train car inside which a beam of light is shot that is reflected in a mirror located on the roof of the car.

                                               Figure 3

               

The round trip time of the light ray is its Proper Time (tp) In each advance position of the wagon the direction of the ray is represented. With this drawing we may clearly see that the ray of light is moving in the same vertical as the person who launches it and that it has its Own Time (tp) inherent to this phenomenon.

It is absurd to argue that, as the person who is outside the car, fixed on the ground, has lengthened the completion of the reflection of the ray of Light, time has dilated.

From outside the wagon: The VISION of the image of the phenomenon is lengthened. Not the Proper Time (tp) of the phenomenon

Applying this conclusion to the “twin brothers paradox” we can say:

If we assume that the person who launches the lightning from inside the train car is the astronaut twin brother, we can affirm that both the Reflection Process of the lightning and the biological process of the aforementioned person have their Proper Time (tp) invariable compared to observation from Eart

(NOTE: in the treatises on the subject that concerns us, they present a relationship between the Travel Time of the ray (td) and the Proper Time (tp) of the reflection phenomenon. This relationship is as follows:

                          
In which the expression: 1/√(1-v^2/c^2 ) is known as the "Lorentz Factor", and in which (c) is the speed of light. (The calculation of this relationship the reader can find described in one of our essays)

As the aforementioned books state that the (td) is the time it takes for the man located outside the train car to see the end of the ray reflection process and , the (tp) is the Proper Time, which is the one that sees the man who is inside the wagon and, as the Lorentz Factor has a value greater than one, they come to the strange conclusion that time dilates since: (td) > (tp).

we repeat that from outside the wagon WE SEE the lengthening of the end of the phenomenon due to the displacement of the wagon. This elongation is due to the Travel Time (td))

A THIRD LOOK

Unlike physical experiments, so-called thought experiments sometimes stray too far from reality and logical reasoning in their approach. We could apply this statement to the mental experiment of the train car that we have previously exposed, and another experiment that A. Einstein uses in his aforementioned book. It is about the mental experiment that he proposes so that we accept as valid the “Principle of Equivalence”. It is another fallacy that we have already talked about in other of our essays. With the sole purpose of stopping to make a brief reflection on this topic, we have tried to visualize with a drawing what happens in these thought experiments. We have baptized such a drawing as "the third eye"

                                                      Figure 4

          
This drawing is intended to suggest the following. It is we who are judging what could happen in the Thought Experiment that poses the fallacy of time dilation and, by assimilation, the paradox of the twin brothers.

It is our eye that visualizes and analyzes the situation. It is an observation outside the gaze and interpretation of the two acting agents. In other words, the man who is riding the train and the man who is still on the embankment and contemplates the course of the ray of light. Our eye, the Third eye, will see that the man standing still on the ground SEES that the Process is lengthening for the astronaut. He sees that the Process is slowing down. But we reason that life is not slower for the astronaut, but rather that he is mounted on a vehicle that transports physical phenomena: the phenomenon of the reflection of a ray of light or the biological phenomenon of the person who launches the ray. And this does not modify at all the Proper Time (tp) of the Processes of it.

 

THE TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOBILE CLOCKS

In this paragraph we denounce the fallacy of the mobile watch test. This fallacy is intended to justify the nonsense of "time dilation."

Its promoters say that a mobile clock with respect to another fixed one, and moving this mobile clock at a speed close to that of light, the time indicated by this clock dilates. They are talking about infinitesimal and almost negligible units. These advertisers of such a fallacy justify this time difference by speaking of an experiment of doubtful authenticity and verification, carried out with atomic clocks, without any guarantee of authenticity. We criticize this argument again using the logic

The following figure represents the train car that we mentioned before, but that now we do not consider the launch of a ray of light. Inside it now contains a pendulum clock.

                                  Figure 5

       
The person who is fixed on the ground has a clock that controls the passage of time. This fixed clock will be taken as a time reference.

The pendulum clock swings from left to right and vice versa. We ask ourselves: can we say that the time inside the wagon has been dilated because the fixed observer takes a longer time to SEE the oscillation that the pendulum makes from left to right? oscillation is due to the fact that the fixed observer's vision of the arrival goal is being displaced. None of the “time dilation” nonsense!

The doubt might arise that we have exposed this thought experiment in which we have implicitly assumed that the pendulum could swing thanks to gravity. The reader will already understand that we can do this same approach in outer space, using a mechanical watch.

 We believe that with the above reasoning we have declared the “twin brothers paradox” to be a fallacy.

 

THE FALLACY OF THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE AND MASS AND THE LORENTZ FACTOR

PRESENTATION

Through our Blog, we have criticized the nonsense of involving the deformation of space to justify the force of attraction of gravity on bodies.

 As we have recently seen false information appear that attempts to confuse logical reasoning regarding this issue, we add a new essay to dismantle such fallacy.

Some of these false news, pretend to rely on the idea that: the Physicist who affirmed such a fallacy, is the same one who predicted the existence of gravitational waves, whose existence has subsequently been verified. It seems that these false preachers justify the fact that we must admit the nonsense of the deformation of space since it was said by the same person who was right with the phenomenon of gravitational waves. We think that, if there are no hidden interests, those who reason in this puerile way commit a fallacy of the type "argumentum ad homine"

Our criticism will be based on highlighting a false interpretation of the Lorentz Factor and the Lorentz Transformation Formulas that lead to the aforementioned error.

 

TWO MENTAL EXPERIMENTS THAT DENOUNCE THE FALLACY OF THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE.

In this essay we include two thought experiments,

that were devised by the same author of the present study.

We believe that the two examples are sufficiently illustrative to refute the fallacy of the intervention of the deformation of space as an active agent in the intervention of the force of gravity. (We exposed these examples in our Blog, with the title: "Theory of Relativity. - Misleading Approaches"- Third instalment- The fallacy of the deformation of space)

We comment and summarize the cited examples.

 The first figure represents a Test Mass (for example, a stone) that, because it is "touching" the Earth and there is no space between both masses... can we say that there is no attractive force, such as gravity, when not be able to deform space?... This shows that it is not the intervention of the deformation of space that acts.

                                     Figure 1

                   

Figure 2 presents the case of two different masses (m1) and (m2) that are at the same distance from the bringing Mass, that is: (d1) = (d2). Carrying out calculations it is found that, although the space between the attractive mass (Mt) and the two test masses (m1) and (m2) is the same, the Attractive Force is different. What justifies that "space" does not intervene

                                       Figure 2

                       

(ONE OBSERVATION: Do not confuse concepts: It is interesting that we bear in mind that the ACCELERATION with which both Masses are subjected is the same, but they are subjected to different Forces of Attraction (Fa). We must consider that what we are investigating is the concept "FORCE" and not the concept "ACCELERATION". We investigate the cause. Not the effects. For this reason, it is interesting to take into account this conclusion that could divert us from our objective)

 

THE LORENTZ FACTOR

It is known as the Lorentz Factor and is usually represented abbreviated as (L), the mathematical operator:

                             
Where (v) means the speed of a moving body, with uniform and rectilinear speed, and (c) means the speed of light.

We find this expression in the well-known thought experiment of the train car. It is obtained by looking for the relationship between the Proper Time (tp) of the physical phenomenon that takes place inside the wagon (the reflection of a light ray in a mirror), and the Time of Displacement of the train wagon (td). This relationship is quantified by the following expression:

                             

(Note: In other essays by this same author, the mathematical process to obtain this expression is detailed)

 In the erroneous interpretation given to this equality, the fallacy of "time dilation" and "mass and space deformation" starts. We justify our statement by recalling some paragraphs written in our previous essays.

In one of them we call it the GENESIS OF NONSENSE

We say that your misinterpretation comes from the statement that we find in the book by A. Einstein, entitled: “On the theory of special and general relativity”. Speaking of a train car inside which a process is carried out, in this statement he says:

“The time that a process needs in relation to the wagon cannot be equal to the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment”

In our "little book" entitled: "Theory of relativity. - Criticism of nonsense”, we present more than three reasons to justify that this statement cannot be accepted as valid.

Figure 3 means the movement of the train car inside which a beam of light is fired that is reflected in a mirror located on the roof of the car. The round trip time of the light ray is its Proper Time (tp). In each advance position of the wagon, the direction of the beam is represented.

                                      Figure 3

        

this absurd to argue that, since the person who is outside the car, fixed on the ground, the end of the reflection of the light beam has been lengthened. Light, time has dilated.

From outside the wagon: The vision of the image of the phenomenon is lengthened. Not the proper time (tp) of the phenomenon

 

THE FALLACY OF THE DILATATION OF THE MASS

In this chapter we denounce another fallacy that can lead us to the error of reasoning that "space is deformed" since, if we consider that mass occupies a place in space, considering absurdities, we can conclude that the space it occupies is deformed. To criticize this issue, we transcribe a part of our book entitled “Theory of Relativity. Criticism of nonsense analysed in seven fascicles”

We copy the following fascicle:

 In this Fascicle, taking as a reference the book of

A. Einstein entitled "Introduction to the theory of special and general relativity", we denounce:

The fallacy of mass deformation. The error of wanting to include simultaneous phenomena within relativity and… other confusion We criticize the subject: “THE LENGTHENING OF THE MEASURING BAR.

Paragraph 12 of the aforementioned book that we take as a reference is entitled: "THE BEHAVIOR OF RULES AND MOBILE CLOCKS" It is based on the mental experiment of the train car and, summarizing its content, it tells us that: using a bar to measure lengths, this bar will be longer assessed from the embankment, than assessed from inside the train car. We clarify that instead of saying "WILL BE" longer we should say: "WE WILL SEE" longer.

We could call it as: The great confusion between the appreciation of the dimensions of the IMAGE OF A BODY in uniform and rectilinear movement and the real dimension of this BODY. In the lengthening of the measuring bar, he confuses the movement of the image of the body as if it were the body itself

                                  Figure 4

  

The measuring bar has its own length (lp) which is what

 would get an observer who was inside the car, where the bar is. Another experiment would be the result of the SEEING, or the VISION OF THE IMAGE, of a fixed observer located outside the train car.

We have seen written the project of trying to deduce the well-known expression:  

in which in an intermediate step of the mathematical process a factor is added to take into account the "dilation of the mass" and, at the end of the process, this factor is removed or annulled without giving a coherent explanation. The mental confusion to which the Theory leads is such that it seems that one cannot reason without it, although in the end one must end up removing what is in the way”

(End of the cited transcript)

 

(NOTE: See the same author of this book, the Essay published by the scientific journal: "International Journal of Fundamental Physics Sciences", called the expression

informs us that in ancient times there was a great explosion that expelled the atoms from a common environment”)

 

THE FORMULAS OF TRANSFORMATION OF LORENZ

The Lorentz factor is also found in the so-called Lorentz Transformation Formulas.

These formulas, in inertial movements (relative movements between two reference systems and at constant rectilinear speed) allow to calculate the values ​​of the variables: space (e) and time (t) in a MOVING translation of the coordinates.

(Later we will see why we highlight the word “mobile”)

To introduce us to the topic of Lorentz Transformation formulas, we quote the following.

In the book “On the theory of special and general relativity” by A. Einstein, on page 32 (“Alianza Editorial” Edition), he describes the form and utility of the formulas called Lorentz Transformations, as follows:

 

“Given the quantities (x,y,z,t) of an event with respect to (k),

What are the values ​​(x`,y`,z´,t´) of the same event with respect to

(k´)?”

The ratios must be chosen in such a way that they satisfy the laws of propagation of light in a vacuum for one and the same light ray (and also for any light ray) with respect to (K) and (K´).”

 

And he goes on to say:

"The problem is solved by the equations"

 

                    Space Formula

                      Figure 1

 
                    time formula

                     Figure 2

 
And, on this same page of the aforementioned book, the following coordinate system (k) and (K) is drawn

                                           Figure 4

   
The variable (v) means the relative speed that the system (K´) has with respect to the system (K)The explanation that appears in the aforementioned book, together with the previous drawing, does little to help us understand the purpose and way of using the aforementioned formulas. So we make a brief analysis:

For the moment we will analyse the Space Formula.

Let us observe that in the Space Formula in its numerator the expression appears:

                                              x-vt

In Figure 4 we see that this operation corresponds to a transfer of the origins of the coordinate axes. This is what would happen in a finite motion. But, we must consider that we are considering a continuous relative motion. We are interested in knowing that we can SEE from a certain position of the coordinates (K´), which are moving, the phenomena that occur and have the coordinates (K) as a reference. This is the reason why we have previously talked about a Mobile Transfer. It is not only a question of a transfer of coordinate axes from one place to another in space, but we must also add the intervention of the speed with which this displacement is carried out.

The measurements of these phenomena are quantified in: space (e) and time (t). It is in this SEE operation that our well-known operator intervenes as the denominator of the formula: 

Trying to give an explanation as understandable as possible, we have designed figure 5 in order to realize how the Lorentz Factor intervenes in the VISION OF THE IMAGE of an object or physical phenomenon. We repeat that the aforementioned formulas transform VISIONS, that is, the images

                                             Figure 5

              
The figure represents two SITUATIONS in outer space.

(Remember that in one of our essays we defined that the POSITION was given by the coordinates that, in outer space, an Event occupies with respect to a Fixed Reference System, while in the SITUATION we added to the POSITION the concept of "time" or "instant" in which it occurs. Thus Newton's laws are incorporated into the Events)

The left part of the figure represents the outer space environment where the Event takes place, be it a body or the development of a physical law. We consider it as the Fixed Reference System (FRS).

The right part of the figure represents the mobile environment from which what happens in the (FRS) is observed. This observation is made from a Mobile Reference System (MRS). Remember that we are dealing with relative motions.

The (tr) represents the Travel Time of the image to reach the observation point. The (td) represents the Travel Time that an observer would take to SITUATE himself in the observation POSITION. (Remember the definition we had given to these two concepts)

 As we have said, the Lorentz Factor ensures that in the Lorentz Transformation Formulas not only the transfer of the reference coordinates is taken into account, but also the VISUALIZATION changes due to the MOVEMENT of the (MRS).

 

HOW DOES THE LORENTZ FACTOR ACT IN THIS TRANSFORMATION OF THE IMAGE?

When deducing the expression of the Lorenz Factor, the following condition is imposed: SYNCHRONIZATION.

This condition implies that: if the observer is right in the (FMS) when the event starts, this observer is already POSITIONED to be able to SEE the end of the event. Therefore, in the observation position of the (MRS) the equality must be fulfilled:

                                              (td)=(tr)

Any SITUATION that does not meet this condition would be impossible to SEE the content of the (FRS)

(NOTE: To make it more accessible to the reader, we omit the integral calculus notation that defines all the possible differentials corresponding to the infinite Situations to be considered from the beginning to a certain end)

 When we impose this condition when calculating the referred Factor, we do nothing more than establish a relationship between the speeds (v) and (e).

As the reader will have noticed, here we have only operated with the vision of the image. Not with the "bodies" of the Events.

RESUME

The numerator of the Space Transformation Formula tells us that it is a translation of the coordinate axes. We can say that it is a “static” operation. Just a transfer without further movement. (See figure 4)

But, in addition, in this formula appears the factor   

related to the movement of the coordinates to which you are linked to the (MRS) and that relates us the speed of (v) of the (MRS) and the speed of light (c) and that allows us to SEE the transformation of the variables.

 

CASE OF THE TIME FORMULA

The reader may have some doubt in the interpretation of the Time Transformation Formula. To dispel this doubt, we say the following:

In the numerator of the formula, the expression that appears subtracting is about a time. So it is a coordinate shift.

(NOTE: The fact that it is a "time" the reader will find its mathematical deduction in our essay entitled: "Theory of relativity- mathematical interpretation of the Lorentz Factor- In the paragraph entitled: Correcting factor of speeds. Measurement travel time (td))

 If the reader is interested in following the mathematical process of obtaining the Lorentz Factor, we refer him to our essay entitled: “Relativity Theory- Mathematical Analysis of the Lorentz Factor”, in the paragraph entitled: “The Lorentz Factor. A mathematical expression that appears in the Transformation Formulas”)

We finish this essay by insisting and saying once again: The “body”, the mass, is not deformed, and consequently the space it occupies is not deformed, but the one that is deformed by the VISION of the IMAGE of the body. Let us remember that adage that says that: “space is what remains of an empty room when the walls are removed”

 

THEORY OF RELATIVITY - DECEPTIVE APPROACHES - THIRD DELIVERY

(Intellectual Property Registry: B-221-21)

We continue with the topic: 2.4.- THE FALLACY OF THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE

WHAT INFORMATION DOES NEWTON'S LAW PROVIDE US?

The aforementioned Newton's law informs us of the way of valuing and the way of acting of the Masses that intervene with respect to the Force of Attraction (Fa) that appears between them. Newton informs us that a force field appears between the Masses, but he does not inform us of why it is generated. This is where the "mental fantasies" appear to try to explain what is unknown.

However, this law gives us arguments to refute the fantasy of the deformation of space.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS INTERVENING IN THE PHENOMENON

To try that in our investigation we do not go against common sense, we suggest using an analysis carrying out the following three steps:

1.- A Physical Phenomenon is produced between two known AUTHORS who intervene in the phenomenon. We call them Masses: (M1) and (M2)

2.- We define a platform outside the variables of the phenomenon. We identify it as: SPACE.

3.- There must be a LINK between the two authors, the Masses, which makes them interact with each other. This NEXO is the variable that we do not know and that we have our doubts to identify it.

Maybe it's the Neutrinos moving around

 sidereal space and crossing all the masses establish the nexus between two Masses?... We leave to the consideration, analysis, criticism and investigation of the experts in Atomic Physics.

 

WHAT HAS THE PREVIOUS ANALYSIS USED US FOR?

These three points help us define the following:

We separate the "actors" that intervene in the physical phenomenon, from the support or platform in which it is carried out.

Using the metaphor we will say that:

The stage in which the function takes place is SPACE. The actors are the MASSES. Their dialogue between them is their LINK.

 

WHAT WRONG CONCLUSION CAN WE DRAW FROM THE OBSERVATION OF FIGURE 1?

We have explained that the presence of the Earth deforms the Space that makes another Mass approach and "fall" on it

We ask ourselves: Can we “Materialize” Space and make BODIES navigate with it?

How should we interpret the case in which, for example, a Mass is so far from the Earth that the Force of Gravity does not act? Should we interpret that in this case the Space has been "unfolding" or "flattening"?...

We think of the well-known idea that says: “Space is what remains of an empty room when its walls collapse”. We should not give him material attributes

 

TWO THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS THAT INVALIDATE THE IDEA OF SPACE WARPING AS A CAUSE OF GRAVITY

We have designed two mental experiments in order to invalidate the idea that Space intervenes as a variable to consider in the generation of Gravitational Forces. We will identify these approaches as:

1.- Mental experiment without the intervention of Space.

2.- Experiment with equal Spaces between the acting Masses

We proceed to describe these thought experiments

 

1.- MENTAL EXPERIMENT WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF SPACE

Let us remember that we separate as two different entities, the Space and the Masses that occupy this Space.

If in the approach of the appearance of attractive forces (Fa) between two Masses, we omit the intervention of SPACE, we wonder if these forces will really appear.

If with the aforementioned omission we can observe that those forces continue to exist, this will allow us to affirm that the concept of SPACE and its DEFORMATION are not causative agents of the physical phenomenon that we are dealing with.

APPROACH TO THOUGHT EXPERIMENT No. 1

Suppose two MASSES located in outer space, touching each other, or very close to each other, in which we can appreciate that there is practically NO “Space” between them. Can we say for this that there is no force of attraction between them? them because there is no “Space”?

REPRESENTATION OF THE EXPERIMENT

Without worrying about the scale of the values ​​of its dimensions, we have drawn a large Mass that can correspond to the globe (MT) and, practically on top of it, another small mass, which could be, for example, a stone (mp) Reality confirms that we cannot say that since there is no "space" between them that can be deformed, there is no gravity                             

                                  

A POSSIBLE DOUBT: Doubt may arise when asking ourselves if, since there is no Space, how do the MASSES interact? In a previous paragraph, when talking about the possible existence of subatomic particles, we have commented that it seems that what produces this nexus is present both in Space (support of the Physical Phenomenon that we are considering) and inside the acting Masses themselves. . We repeat what we have already said: perhaps the exchange of the subatomic particles corresponding to each of the two Masses is involved here? We leave this investigation for the experts on these topics.

2.- MENTAL EXPERIMENT WITH EQUAL SPACES BETWEEN THE ACTING MASSES

 EXPERIMENT APPROACH

In this thought experiment we consider two masses of different sizes (m1) and (m2) that are at the same distance (d) from a third Mass that attracts them. That is, we will assume

(d1) = (d2) The figure tries to represent this situation. We will suppose, for example, that the big ball is the Earth. We have represented its Mass by (MT).

 

                      

AN OBSERVATION

Do not confuse concepts:

It is interesting that we take into account that the ACCELERATION with which both Masses are subjected is the same, but they are subjected to different Forces of Attraction (Fa). We must consider that what we are investigating is the concept "FORCE" and not the concept "ACCELERATION". We investigate the cause. Not the effects. For this reason it is interesting to take into account this conclusion and that it could divert us from our objective

 

DIFFERENT FORCES OF ATTRACTION.

If we take as an example two very different masses, such as: a stone with a mass equal to: (mp) = 1Kgm. and a battle tank with a mass equal to (mc) = 62.5 x 103 Kgs. that fall from the same height towards the surface of the Earth, we will obtain that the Forces of Attraction to which they have been subjected are respectively equal to:

                      (Fc) = 61,464x 104 Kgs

                     (Fp) = 9,834 kg.

The conclusion is that two masses (m1) and (m2) at the same distance from the attracting mass (MT) are subjected to different Forces of Attraction (Fa). So we have to deduce that the notion of the intervention of SPACE in the referred Force of Attraction "has vanished". We are left with the idea that the main ACTORS are the MASSES. NOT THE SPACE.

(NOTE: In the book by the same author of this essay, entitled: "Theory of Relativity. -A false theory" the data and the calculation process are given to reach the referred results)

ACQUIRED ACCELERATION IS THE SAME

We can verify that the two mentioned different forces generate equal accelerations. If we divide each Force obtained by its corresponding Mass, identical values ​​will be obtained. That is to say:

                    (Ac) = (61.464 x 104 )/62.5x103 = 9.834 m/sec²   

                    (Ap) = 9,834/1 = 9,834 meters/sec²   

These results serve to remind us of what we said before: “Do not confuse concepts”

A PROBABLE DOUBT?

Perhaps in this confusion that the well-known Physicist subjects us to, with the idea that space bends, we wonder if we should consider the interior of the two spheres as a "space". absurd idea. We must be clear about the distinction between: SPACE and BODIES. The attracting Mass must be considered as a whole. As a BODY whose center of gravity is precisely in the center of this BODY

A FINAL DOUBT

We summarize our last doubt in the question: can we associate the Gravitational Matter that Einstein speaks of with Dark Matter?

(END OF DELIVERIES)