The Fairy Tale of Time Dilation
by Mathias Hüfner
Some time ago I came across an article entitled Quasare bestätigen Zeitdehnung nach Albert Einstein. 1 Because of their strong spectral redshift, time would pass more slowly there. It was written by Andreas Müller, editor-in-chief of Sterne und Weltraum 2 and editor-in-chief of astronomy at the journal Spektrum der Wissenschaft since 2019. He argues:
“Time is relative. Not only would we agree with this from a psychological perspective, it is also a hard fact of modern physics. The time dilation of Einstein’s theory of relativity was predicted more than 100 years ago and has been measured and confirmed in various systems.“
Of course, time is relative. It depends on location. This has been the case since the beginning of human time recording, and not just in modern physics.
What does relative actually mean? Relative comes from the word relation. A relation is a dependency between two different facts or objects. Time is a relationship between a human-chosen cycle of motion on the Earth or the cycle of motion of the Earth around the Sun and the Moon around the Earth. Calendars were the first time management, invented in Egypt and Mesopotamia when people were settling down and began farming. Nowadays we also have summer and winter time. We can determine the beginning and end of a time interval. Christians start counting time from the birth of Christ. In other religions, the beginning of time is defined differently. The Big Bang worldview started time 13.6 billion years ago, at a time when our time standard did not yet exist. Time is a matter of human agreement, like any physical relationship. What we can’t do is influence the other side of this relationship, the movement of the stars. In this respect, time dilation is not a hard physical fact, but an invention of Einstein. Physics would be back in order if one understood the speed of light not as a natural constant but only as a material constant.
Time is bound to location and movement, which is why it is incomprehensible that the theory of relativity propagates the independence of time from space by introducing time as a fourth dimension. Movement requires a physical volume in which movement can take place. We assign a mathematical space to a volume. A mathematical space is an ordering relation between a volume and three real number lines that are independent of each other. The number lines are inclusively “infinity” compact, which means that space cannot expand, because then it would not be compact, and one could not use the infinitesimal calculus to calculate forces and energies.
An expanding space would be useless for physics as a measuring science. Nobody would think of using a rubber band as a tape measure. Movement is always recorded in space concerning a coordinate system. It is, therefore, absurd to add time as an independent coordinate outside of space. Independent of space would mean that time is perpendicular on every path. One could then be in several places at the same time, or each place could have the past and the future at the same time. Time would no longer be relative, it would be absolutized. But when the past coincides with the future there is no more movement. Consequently, Einstein’s space-time is a magical world, admittedly fascinating but absurd. Einstein could have seen that time cannot be an independent coordinate from the old Saxon postal pillars (Fig. 2), on which distances were given in horse hours. In the cosmos, we use the unit light year for the distances to the stars. The embarrassment with space-time is not eliminated by the fact that Landau and Lifschitz replace time with the product of the speed of light multiplied by time, so apparently a fourth dimension as an additional distance. This distance is already contained in the three spatial dimensions. What good would it do to show these as independent of themselves? A movement in space would then have two different times. If time is supposed to be independent of space, why should a movement in it lead to time dilation? Does the observer determine the laws of nature here?
Academic astrophysicists, however, never tire of trying to prove Einstein’s crazy ideas of special and general relativity. If you take a closer look and use your imagination, you will see that these hypotheses always violate a physical principle or mathematical rule, which is intended to deceive the public. The astrophysicists around their Peer Martin J. Rees 3, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, may themselves have become victims of their own ideology.
Much effort has been made to popularize belief in Einstein’s theory of relativity. This was topped by the hugely successful 1968 science fiction film “Planet of the Apes,” directed by Franklin J. Schaffner and starring Charlton Heston as astronaut Taylor. The plot is based on the 1963 novel La Planète des singes by Pierre Boulle. What is described there is called a journey through time. Captain Tailor’s crew returns from a round trip of one and a half light years. During these one and a half years in the rocket, the Earth is said to have orbited the Sun 2006 times and is therefore no longer recognizable. After humanity destroyed its civilization, the apes gained control of the Earth and the remaining humans degenerated and lost their language.
Figure 3 shows Tailor’s flight with the rocket from a distant point in the Z direction. As the rocket moves away from Earth, it looks to the Earth observer as if the atomic clock in the rocket is running slower, but the passengers do not notice this because their atomic clock has not changed its beat. As the rocket approaches Earth, from Earth it looks as if the rocket’s clock is running faster. In rockets, wheel clocks with pendulums, such as those used in Einstein’s time, are useless because their pendulums respond to acceleration. In the real world, therefore, the clocks on Earth and in the rocket should be running in sync when Tailor’s rocket lands. By then, however, the crew’s life clock will have long run out.
Modern clocks are no longer wheel clocks, as in Einstein’s time, but are based on the frequency of light oscillations that are set in relation to the second. From the perspective of the stationary observer, the oscillation frequency of a light source is influenced by the movement of the light source through the Doppler effect, whereby the speed of light and the speed of the light source are subtracted or added depending on the approach or escape. But this contradicts the requirement of Einstein’s special theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant in all reference systems. So what are cosmic speeds?
Firstly, there is the speed of light, and secondly, the speed of masses. If no mass is transported, the light is the information that an electron has been accelerated, and this information causes energy at the receiver according to Max Planck of h divided by λ, where h is the action constant of the electron and λ is the emitted wavelength. Let us assume that the electron separates from the proton of the hydrogen atom at the speed of light, which is quite unlikely. Then according to the rocket principle, the law of conservation of momentum would apply and the proton would move away in the opposite direction at a speed of 300,000/1836 km/s = 163 km/s, assuming there are no electric fields in the cosmos that accelerate the proton further. This would result in a redshift for a hydrogen cloud according to the formula z= v/c = 0.00054. However, the solar wind has proton velocities between 300-400 km/s 4, which would more than double the redshift and indicate an acceleration of charge carriers in electric fields, which modern astrophysics negates. Even if we observe a longer wavelength, there is no physical reason why a distant light source made of hydrogen gas should radiate at a longer wavelength. Edwin Hubble discovered in the 1920s that the wavelength of the spectral lines of the emitted light increases with the distance of the galaxies. As the cosmic volume is not empty, like the imaginary mathematical space, the Hubble constant can be understood as absorption of the transmission channel cosmos. 5 There is no physical evidence that, for example, hydrogen ticks differently in a different environment than on Earth, but there is evidence that light interacts with electrons on its way to Earth and loses energy.
Halton Arp, a student of Hubble, found that the redshift of spectral lines does not follow the relationship found by Hubble everywhere in the cosmos. In particular, when two cosmic objects appear to be optically connected, they often have different redshifts, which indicates strong inhomogeneities in the cosmic medium near galaxies. Special cases are the quasi-stellar objects that Arp found near Seyfert galaxies. These galaxies are particularly active and contrary to the theory that propagates the devouring of matter, these galaxies eject matter at intervals. From his observations at the beginning of the 1990s, he concluded:
The only possible conclusion from this evidence is that quasars energized condensations of matter that have been recently ejected from active galaxy nuclei. 6
is an example for a Quasar
Figure 4: Quasar with redshift z = 2.1 — Reference: Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Figure 4 shows a quasar with its spectrum redshifted by z=2.1. The broad lines of multiply ionized carbon in its spectrum are striking, while the absorption lines show no broadening. The broad lines are emitted by highly ionized atoms of carbon and magnesium, which is a sign of strong electrical activity in the vicinity of these cosmic objects. The interaction of the emitted light with the free electrons in the neighborhood of the quasar is an inevitable consequence. However, academic astrophysicists now claim that the cosmos, as a transmission medium, would transmit the light pulse without any energy loss, which is impossible according to Planck’s radiation law. One of the most prominent representatives of this absurd view is Martin Rees, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who has worldwide influence on academic astrophysics.
In my studies of galaxy spectra, I was able, to observe a broadening of the spectral lines with increasing redshift, not only in quasars but in general, which indicates a loss of energy according to Planck. If the Doppler effect were the cause of the redshift, the spectral line would have to be shifted without broadening. A query of the Sky Server database1 7 gave me confirmation.
Figure 5 shows the width of the Ha spectral line as a function of redshift. Each point represents an active galaxy from the database. The set of points shows the expected triangle from z< 0.004. This corresponds to a speed of just over 1000 km/s. Up to this point, a Doppler shift can be expected. This value is the geometric mean of the speed from conservation of momentum and energy conservation. Larger redshifts are due to energy losses during the transmission of light. The graph shows that the Doppler shift over cosmic distances is negligible compared to the shift due to energy loss by interaction with the cosmic medium. Hubble was right that the redshift was due to an effect unknown at the time and, together with the distribution of galaxies, does not support the theory of the Big Bang.
The red shift of the spectral lines of cosmic objects has absolutely nothing to do with possible time dilation. These are fantasies of pseudo-scientists far removed from any reality who believe that the speed of light is a natural constant, even though there is no evidence for this other than Einstein’s determination of a projection center for his Lorentz mapping. Physics is a science that operates with relations rather than objects. It is harmful if the reference values created, such as space and time, are not constant.
NOTES
[1] A. Müller – Quasare bestätigen Zeitdehnung nach Albert Einstein; Spektrum der Wissenschaft 06.07.2023 https://www.spektrum.de/news/kosmologie-quasare-bestaetigen-zeitdehnung-nach-albert-einstein/2157078
[2] German-language journal for astronomy and space research
[3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A4pstliche_Akademie_der_Wissenschaften
[5] The original measurements by Hubble gave a value of 500 km/s Mps. It has since been set at 68 km/s Mps. Such a large difference in the measurements indicates that the so-called Hubble constant cannot be constant, but depends on the density of the cosmic medium, which is not homogeneous.
[6] H. Arp – Seeing Red- Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science; Apeiron 1998 p.54
[7] https://skyserver.sdss.org/edr/
Dr. Mathias Hüfner is a German translator volunteer for The Thunderbolts Project. He studied physics from 1964 until 1970 in Leipzig Germany, specializing in analytical measurement technology for radioactive isotopes. He then worked at Carl Zeiss Jena until 1978 on the development of laser microscope spectral analysis. There he was responsible for software development for the evaluation of the spectral data. Later he did his doctorate at the Friedrich Schiller University in the field of engineering and worked there 15 years as a scientific assistant. Some years after the change in East Germany, he worked as a freelance computer science teacher the last few years before his retirement.
Since 2015, Mathias has run a German website of The Thunderbolts Project http://mugglebibliothek.de/EU and his latest book is entitled Dynamic Structures in an Open Cosmos
The ideas expressed in Thunderblogs do not necessarily express the views of T-Bolts Group Inc. or The Thunderbolts Project.
