100 reasons why Special/General Relativity are impossible

Books, journal articles, web pages, and news reports that can help to clarify the history and promise of the Electric Universe hypothesis.
User avatar
EtherQuestions
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:54 pm

100 reasons why Special/General Relativity are impossible

Unread post by EtherQuestions » Sun Mar 15, 2020 9:24 pm

The purpose of this thread is to make people aware of serious errors and logical fallacies in Special/General Relativity that aren't commonly known about or discussed. These 100/100 reasons will be added on a continuous basis. DO NOT post here (this is for resource only), post on the discussion thread.

Why Thunderbolts?

After fruitless attempts to share these on some other forums, I've came to the realization that some people (unfortunately) do want good and well established critiques of relativity to be known about. The bad criticisms that already have an established answer in relativity and do not really question or invalidate the theory on a logical, empirical, or mathematical level seem to get a free pass on many sites, and are used to make an example for relativity's known solutions to these problems.

Whereas I've observed it is too often the case that pointing out some of the extreme logical and mathematical fallacies in the theory can be absolutely forbidden from discussion on many physics forums.

All of these reasons have been well tested, I will only be posting the ones I know to have been rigorously tested and held strong with educational peers, physics forums, and my own critical thought. Any reasons that didn't make it past this vetting process will not be shown (any posted that don't prove infallible will be clarified as such) . :geek:

Responses on this particular thread will only be removed to avoid cluttering, please redirect questions, discussion or criticisms to the MODERATOR LINK :arrow: .

Or alternatively by personal message. Criticisms and questions about the reasons given here are very welcome either of these ways (however banal responses filled with ad hominem/insults will be ignored though :roll: ).

Not having posts on this thread is not an attempt to curtail counter-criticism, it is just to make it easier for people to read the reasons given as they would otherwise be buried by responses.

If any of these critiques end up having any problem that renders them defunct, this will be clarified and I will post the reason why as well so they aren't incorrectly used (although I believe this is highly unlikely as they are well tested critiques in countless debates with people extremely well versed in theoretical physics).

If anybody has any strong critique against relativity they want to add to this thread, please do message me them. If I cannot find any problem with the reasons myself (I am a heavy critic), I will add them to the logical vetting process (which after outsourcing the cognitive resources to find any issues, if they prove flawless criticisms and survive the rigorous debate process, I promise to add them here and give full credit to the creator).

I have tried to make these reasons as clear and concise as possible so they are universally understandable. They aren't all mine either, most are the creations of (or modified from) others who will be referenced and given credit for their discoveries. This is a constantly evolving process, so contribution (as mentioned above) is welcome through the other thread/pm. Enjoy, and keep up the critical thinking/objective reason! :)
"Considering there is no reactive force even considered in the interaction between mass and space in General Relativity's space-curvature field equations, even though both can likewise act on one another, it is therefore in direct violation of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion."

User avatar
EtherQuestions
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:54 pm

Re: 100 reasons why Special/General Relativity are impossible

Unread post by EtherQuestions » Wed Mar 18, 2020 4:38 pm

Reason 1/100 of why Special/General Relativity are entirely impossible. (99 parts to go)


The "relativistic" derivation of the original Lorentz Transformation is mathematically impossible


All mathematical notions built ontop of relativistic Lorentzian transformations are invalid as their foundations are made of quicksand. This is because light invariance is actually incompatible with the original Lorentzian mathematical transformations, the method used by Einstein to derive the formal Lorentz Transformation which uses light invariance instead, ignores basic mathematical constraints. It sums together simultaneous equations that are incompatible to begin with.

This fact outlined below cannot be ignored, as the edifices of the beautiful mathematical constructs in Special/General Relativity are ALL built on top of this flawed Lorentzian groundwork.

Using an example from a book wrote by Einstein himself "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" (http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html).


If we just consider the x axis in the relativistic derivation of the Lorentz Transformation:

Einstein considers equations for the motion of a photon in an unprimed and primed' reference frame. We subtract the (invariant) light distance (ct) in both of these frames to get 0:

(1) x-ct=0
(2) x'-ct'=0

(x and x' must be positive)

... and also below for a photon traveling along the NEGATIVE x axis.


(1a)
x+ct=0
(2a) x'+ct'=0

(x and x' must be negative)


Simplified variables for later algebraic consideration ...

To make things clearer later:


We will now write -ct and -ct' in (1,2) as x2 and x2' instead.

(1) x + x2 = 0
(2) x'+ x2'= 0

We will now write +ct and +ct' in (1a 2a) as x1 and x1'.

(1a) x + x1 = 0
(2a) x' + x1'= 0

Just remember x2 = -x1 and x2' = -x1'.

This algebraic fact cannot be denied, the distance traveled by the photon over a given time must be equivalent this way in a frame of reference where light is invariant. The proof and constraint for this have been given already by Einstein above, and will be misused later on.

Keep that in mind, the positive distance (ct) is equivalent to the negative of the other negative x axis ct variable, as defined in the equations above.



The Lorentz Transformation


From the equation pairs (1,2) and (1a,2a) shown above he derives ...

(3) x'-ct'= λ.(x-ct)
(4) x'+ct'= μ.(x+ct)

Now the next part which he uses to arrive at the original Lorentz Transformation is impossible, he adds and subtracts equations (3) and (4).

Remember that in equations 1 and 2, x and x' must be GREATER than 0. (x-ct=0) (1)
And also that in equations 1a and 2a the x and x' values must be SMALLER than 0. (x+ct=0) (1a)

This makes equations 1,2 and 1a,2a algebraically inconsistent to use simultaneously unless they do not exceed or go below that 0 value that the first equations first defined as a clear rule. To make this fact crystal clear:

x2, x2': Positive x
(1) x-ct=0 therefore x= ct
(2) x'-ct'=0 therefore x'= ct'

x1, x1': Negative x
(1a) x+ct=0 therefore x=-ct
(2a) x'+ct'=0 therefore x'=-ct'

These contradicting x values are established at the beginning, it's mumbo jumbo ambiguous mathematics to use them together, and as you are about to witness ends in catastrophic untold disaster for the entire model of Special Relativity.

They CANNOT be used together simultaneously as they are constrained opposites. So equations 3 and 4 which are derived from them respectively also must be restricted to not exceed these same 0 limits. But by adding and subtracting 3 and 4 Einstein gets the Lorentz's original formal Lorentz transformation:


(5a) x' = ax -bct
(5b) ct' = act -bx

Where "a" and "b" are ...

(6) a= (λ+μ)/2
(7) b= (λ-μ)/2

It assumes that (3) and (4) can have BOTH negative and positive x, x' values. Which is not true. In (3) they MUST be positive and in (4) they MUST be negative, they are constricted to their negative or positive x axis by their ORIGINAL definition and corresponding distance of x and x'.
If we return to the fact x2 = -x1 and x2' = -x1'. Then we see what Einstein has done is assume x1 = x2 and x1' = x2' by subtracting and adding the incompatible equations (3) and (4). If you can't see this snowball of variable errors rolling downhill yet ... just to reiterate how this ambiguity ends up as a FURTHER contradiction.

As the Lorentz Transformation is ...

(5a) x' = ax -bct
(5b) ct' = act -bx

Therefore for both interpretations of x and x' (as -ct,-ct' is x2,x2' and +ct,+ct' is x1,x1')...

(12) x1' = ax1 -bct
(13) x2' = ax2 -bct

If we now insert x2 = -x1 and x2' = x1'. We have:

(14) -x1' = -ax1 -bct
(15) x1' = ax1 +bct


and by comparison with (12) we can thus conclude

(16) b=0

(unless t=0 (and hence x1=x1'=x2=x2'=0)).

With Einstein's interpretation of the constants, this means that the Lorentz transformation only applies to all values of x and t if the relative velocity of the reference frames is zero, which obviously would be a pointless result.



This cannot be brushed off and this is "no big deal", all subsequent relativistic theories DEPEND on the Lorentzian transformation. The relativistic derivation of the original Lorentz Transformation is fundamental to the assumption that invariant light is even compatible with Lorentzian mathematics. Which relativity never can and never will be. The original Lorentz model of an Ether, as flawed as it might have been didn't use make believe impossible mathematics like Special Relativity does, it had a mathematically consistent model. The Lorentz Transformation simply cannot be used with Special Relativity as it has no adequate mathematical or logical proofs.


Light invariance IS IMPOSSIBLE
, it cannot be cross applied in examples that use Gallilean Transformations. And it cannot be used to derive Lorentz's equations either.

Stay tuned for more. This is only one of a few of the original derivations and proofs of the relativistic Lorentz Transformation, all either having logical and mathematical errors.


*This original mathematical error was discovered by Thomas Smid, PhD. Astronomy, the example is also modified from his. physicsmyths.org.uk
"Considering there is no reactive force even considered in the interaction between mass and space in General Relativity's space-curvature field equations, even though both can likewise act on one another, it is therefore in direct violation of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion."

User avatar
EtherQuestions
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:54 pm

Re: 100 reasons why Special/General Relativity are impossible

Unread post by EtherQuestions » Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:28 pm

Reason 2/100 of why Special/General Relativity are entirely IMPOSSIBLE
(DO NOT POST HERE. Discuss any reasons here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=232 )


The Relativistic "Lorentz Transformation" (Time Dilation) is impossible

Special Relativity (as developed by Einstein) obtains a set of equations, known formally as the Lorentz Transformation formulae, which relates length and time units of two systems moving at uniform velocity relative to each other. However this name is entirely misleading as the original Lorentz Transformations had an Ether rest frame to derive absolute velocity and motion, which unlike relativity made them at least logically feasible despite the problems with the Lorentzian Ether model.
The relativistic Lorentz Transformations are impossible as they inevitably result in different ontological (causal) effects for different observers, this is because the velocity derived physical effects are dependent only upon the observer (relativistic).

And as shown in reason 1, even without these logical fallacies they have no mathematical basis in the proofs as Einstein ignored basic mathematical constraints in his relativistic derivation of the formal Lorentz Transformation. Such blatant mathematical errors today wouldn't even make it past peer review.

Lorentz Transformation

Unlike the equations of the usual Galilei Transformation, the Lorentz Transformations are not merely a linear transformation. The Galilei Transformation describes the change in distance between two points (co-ordinate change) in each reference frame due to their different relative motion). The Lorentz Transformations are non-linear in the velocity due to an additional factor γ containing the ratio of the velocity and the speed of light γ= 1/√[1-(v/c)^2].

The relativistic Lorentz Transformations differ from the original Lorentzian theory in that velocity is entirely dependent upon the observer, they have no absolute velocity to derive effects (as there is no Ether or medium to derive absolute motion) for things such as length contraction.

So objects can undergo a length contraction (and time dilation) for one observer but not another, this produces contradicting effects that make Special Relativity impossible.


Time Dilation


The time dilation claim is based on the set of Lorentz transformation for the "space and time" coordinates relating the rest frame (observer A) (unprimed coordinates) and moving frame (primed' coordinates):

(1a) x'=γ(x - vt)
(1b) t' = γ(t - vx/c²)

Einstein derives the "time dilation" effect by considering the origin of the moving frame x'=0. Inserting thus (Eq.(1a)) x=vt into Eq.(1b) he obtains (considering that γ= 1/√[1-(v/c)^2])

(2) t' = t/γ

This would mean that the clock rates in the moving (primed') frame would be a factor 1/γ slower (time dilation) than in the rest frame (observer A). But as there is no rest frame to derive velocity (which is dependent upon the observer in SR) if we consider the previous primed' frame as Observer B - the effect for this primed frame observing the original frame would be reversed, producing entirely opposite effects.

Using the Lorentz transformation for the Observer B now being the rest frame now:

(3a) x=γ(x' + vt')
(3b) t = γ(t' + vx'/c²)

And applying (like before) the condition x=0 i.e. x'=-vt' (from Eq.(3a)):

(4) t = t'/γ,

So we have opposite time dilations, i.e. a "Twin Paradox" if the dilations are both true and both happen, comparatively there is actually no time dilation. Rendering Special Relativity useless as no times would even get dilated in the Universe (relative to the observer) in the first place as it would always be a mutual dilation.

t = t'/γ
t' = t/γ

We will now demonstrate how relativity still utterly fails to deal with this twin paradox, and why the observer based Universe of relativity with no local rest frame to derive velocity is impossible and results in logical fallacies and contradicting effects.



Why the Twin Paradox (done correctly) still invalidates relativity
(Thomas Smid example)


Relativists always claim that the twin paradox situation is not symmetric as one observer has to turn around and change reference frames to share the time, but this is a lackluster excuse for this complete logical debacle. Because by stopping both clocks BEFORE any return journey to share the time, no change in a state of motion is even required and cannot undo what time dilation just happened either.

If we take a symmetrical example where two frames are moving at a uniform velocity v toward each other,

And a MECHANICAL INTERACTION starts and stops both clocks simultaneously, NO change in reference frame is even required to derive the time.


|-----A-----| -> v.............
.............v <- |-----B-----|

.........Clocks Start......
....|-----A-----|>.................
...............<|-----B-----|...

........Clocks running.....
......|-----A-----|>..............
..............<|-----B-----|......


........Clocks Stop.........
..................|-----A-----|>..
...<|-----B-----|...............

..(Identical Time Dilation)...
....................|-----A-----|>
<|-----B-----|...................



The signal propagation time for both mechanical clock activation in the above example is also irrelevant, if the corresponding distances are identical in both systems, then the delay times will also be IDENTICAL. So any claims of non-symmetry by relativists cannot hold.

So it is clear that the final recorded clock readings MUST be identical or you get a logical contradiction (i.e. if the observer who had the slower time gets a pie in the face after the time is reconciled). But Special Relativity theoretically predicts t'= t/γ, it predicts one observer expects the other to have a slower clock, but as shown in the above example this is simply impossible as this paradox cannot be resolved by an accelerating frame (like in the famous twin paradox) in the above example the clocks are already stopped while the frames are still uniform.

Faced with this, a small number of relativists will claim that the 'relativity of simultaneity' is responsible for the asymmetry, this is a false claim that "relativity wouldn't even theoretically predict/require different time readings in this uniform instance" i.e. the term vv.x/c^2 in the Lorentz transformation formula t'=γ(t-v.x/c^2). But this claim has no basis as the coordinate x is equal to vt (for uniform motion, as used in the above example). Such an argument also contradicts all formally recognized interpretation of Special Relativity and also Einstein's own papers.

As x=vt the original argument that t'= t/γ still holds and theoretically relativity requires this time dilation to happen (as is seen easily by inserting the gamma factor γ= 1/√[1-(v/c)^2].

Einstein actually derives the same expression for the alleged transformation of the clock readings in his paper "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/), which depends only on the absolute value of the speed and neither on its direction nor the x-coordinate (i.e. it does not depend on the 'relativity of simultaneity').

Just to reiterate this in a different time dilation example, if the velocity reverses at some point, this has no impact whatsoever on the clock reading as t' depends only on v^2 (by re-defining the origin x=0 as the reversal point for the 'return-journey' the same expression t'= t/γ does indeed apply to the outward AND return journey for both frames).

So even such an alleged 'asymmetrical' situation where the relativistic effects apply (such as the famous Twin Paradox) is in fact also a paradox if the Lorentz transformation is applied correctly. The relativistic "time dilation" caused from an observer based relative velocity and the solution to the famous paradox using accelerating frames actually shows in itself that relativity is an internally inconsistent theory.

But the point of this reason - even without this problem (as shown above and below), the solution to the famous paradox only works in that specific type of example with different accelerating frames (and not symmetrical or uniform examples as shown in this reason).




A more familiar (an easier) example
(from S. N. Arteha)



A -->-------------O--------------<-- B

> ship A
< ship B


If we have two colonies of Earth’s inhabitants A and B be at a large distance from each other.

The beacon O is at the middle of this distance. It sends a signal (the light sphere), and when it reaches both colonies (simultaneously), each launches a spacecraft piloted by one "twin". The laws of acceleration (to reach a large equal speeds) are chosen equal in advance.

At the time each twin passes the beacon, at a high relative velocity, each will believe that his counterpart should be younger.


A -------------->--O--<--------------- B

This is impossible, since they can photograph themselves at this instant and write their age on the back side of a picture (or even exchange pictures by the digital method). It is nonsense, if for example wrinkles will appear on a pictured face of only ONE astronaut during the deceleration of another one. This is a paradox.

The Famous Twin Paradox


It is important to remember the explanation for the famous paradox of twins (one an astronaut and one an Earth’s inhabitant). Since only one of them accelerates and changes inertial frames it is just this person who was declared to be younger than the other one in eventuality. But before this acceleration each of the twins thought that the other one should be younger.

This itself is a contradiction and entirely impossible, any resolution after the fact is superfluous because this first part of the paradox can be exploited by a minor change to the example.

And, in fact, if one twin is accelerated, then the other grows old faster.

Even the ”explanation” of the classical twins paradox certainly contains some contradictions. First, as shown in this reason everything could have been done symmetrically anyway (an example which easily invalidates Special Relativity's assumptions of "observer dependent time dilation"); but also the astronaut twin and the Earth twin can take photographs before and after the acceleration that changes inertial frames at a given age. If the astronaut is expected to be younger just before the acceleration in one frame but not the other we have an impossible situation that has causal eventualities even before the standard mathematical trick of accelerating frames "saves the paradox".

Accelerating frames doesn't save the paradox, because the paradox is still there and can be exploited in situations before and without it.

All of this logically and empirically demands a different (non-relativistic, non observer based) physical explanation for all experimentally observed "time dilation". One that is logically consistent and based in physical reality. Not the purely mathematical construct of Special Relativity derived from an assumption of light invariance in all frames, which is replete with causal errors and logical fallacies that make the entire related theory simply impossible.




Electromagnetic Retardation


Other non-relativistic theories such as Oleg Jefimenko's Electromagnetic Retardation also mathematically predict the exact same (experimentally) observed "Time Dilation" effects instead by using Oliver Heaviside's equations (which are well tested in electrodynamics), he uses these equations rather than the Lorentz Transformation to derive a theorem based on Electromagnetic Retardation. In this theory a metric of "time" itself isn't being dilated either, it should be mentioned there is no definitive proof either that a metric of "time" even exists because time itself is just a measure of magnitudes - so to say each observer has a "time" dependent on velocity with nothing physical (or an Ether) as a causal basis for this dilation is nonsensical in any serious physical scientific theory.

Final Note


There is actually NO NEED for us to hold onto Special Relativity and its explanation of "time dilation" when it is logically, mathematically, and physically impossible. There are consistent alternatives out there, many of which are likely still undiscovered because many people simply cannot apply an ounce of skepticism to relativity, it essentially gets a "special treatment" that other theorems never receive as it is embedded into academia and its popular culture derivatives in General Relativity only have added further to this problem.



*examples discovered by Thomas Smid, PhD. Astronomy and S.N. Arteha, original explanation modified from writings of Thomas Smid and S.N. Arteha
"Considering there is no reactive force even considered in the interaction between mass and space in General Relativity's space-curvature field equations, even though both can likewise act on one another, it is therefore in direct violation of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion."

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: 100 reasons why Special/General Relativity are impossible

Unread post by nick c » Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:31 pm

Forum members wishing to respond to this thread should do so here

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest