Introduction

“Controversy is only dreaded by the advocates of error.”



Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) American physician, writer, educator



What this website is all about.




This document presents my own efforts to demonstrate the fact that Einstein’s Special Relativity cannot possibly work the way Physicists believe. Who am I to be claiming that Einstein is wrong? Does it matter who I am? Would my words become more true if I was a celebrity or a famous Professor? Or more false if Im am not? How would you know?  The only correct approach is to make a judgement yourself based solely on rationality, reason and logic. Critisim is welcome, as long as it's directed at specific errors I have made in my logic or rational examples.  Ad hominem attacks will be seen as justification that I'm on the right track.

I am not an academic, but I have curiosity. I like to know as much as I can about how things work. This document is not a scientific paper, it is simply a collection of ideas I have had regarding Special Relativity. I do mention General Relativity, and explain briefly why that is also incorrect. However this document is primarily concerned with Special Relativity.

The whole Relativism thing is now so huge, that no one can see past it. Just like the Banks, it’s now “too big to fail”. So people wonder how can I possibly say that Einstein is incorrect. After all, thousands of experiments have proved that it works! 

This is a bit like the claims of the Flat-Earth Society, who have a great many observations that support their claim that the earth is indeed, flat. Truly we are almost at the place where Science, or the belief in a particular dogma of Physics, has become a new universal religion. When I try to explain my position, the “Relativists” seem unable to step outside the safety of the Institutions and authority of the mainstream scientific society. It’s a Religious movement I’m afraid. Either accept Einstein or leave without your diploma. Ask critical questions and you are labeled a Quack. 

Sometimes, Relativists use the very theory I am bringing into question, as evidence that I am wrong. They should simply consider my concept as presented, and then point out where I am wrong, from within my hypothesis. Trying to prove that I am wrong by using the very thing I am claiming is incorrect is somewhat circular. If I have made an error, the error will be evident from within my argument. After a Relativist has shown my errors, he can then explain how Einstein has avoided the mistakes that I have made. I would be happy with that approach, but I’m not so impressed with the criticism, “You are a Quack, because you just are”. 

So with that in mind, I invite you to consider what I am presenting, and avoid pre-judging my motives or mental state. We can discuss these things later, but for now lets just stick to deciding if Special Relativity (SR) is really a solid scientific principal or just a big mistake. We first must decide if the actual underlying hypothesis is sound and reasonable, and can stand up to critical review. This document will show that it does not.

 I am NOT attempting to provide my own theory of Life, the universe and everything. I’m just not happy with the current mainstream ideas. 




A quick description of Einstein’s theory.



Special Relativity is one of those areas of science that has practically no effect in our normal daily activities. Operators of Particle Colliders and GPS satellite engineers apparently must consider SR, but knowing SR theory is hardly useful for the rest of Humanity. This is simply because the effects of SR are only noticeable if something is able to move at speeds approaching light speed, that is: 300,000,000 meters per second. Even the speed of the fastest space rocket is too slow to cause any noticeable effects. 

Stated simply, SR claims that Time, Distance and Mass are related to motion, and the faster the motion, the more Time, Distances and Mass are affected. 



The effects of Time dilation, Length Contraction and Mass Increase rise significantly at speeds approaching the velocity of Light. These days, because of problems with Mass Increase, Physicists prefer to say “Energy Increase” or “Momentum Increase”, but these terms really are still talking about the same effect. 

So that is Einstein’s theory, now we look at why I am not able to agree with it. Before I get too far into this, I must provide a little background and exactly what I disagree with regarding Special Relativity.

Einstein's original 1905 postulates for special relativity went like this:

Postulate 1 - "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion."



Postulate 2 - "Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted b stationary or by a moving body. "


Everyone agrees that Postulate 1 is rational. Some, but not all of Postulate 2 is rational. Fair enough that Light speed in Postulate 2 is a constant. However the irrational claim that light speed is independent of the motion of either the source, or of the motion of any observer, is quite a jump in credulity.

Whilst the speed of light has been measured at slightly different velocities, over the years, the final number has been "set" by averaging results of measurement, and is now been fixed at 299,792,458 m/s. No further tests are necessary, even though light speed may for some reason one day actually change. (Actually, they now define the meter in terms of light speed, so you can’t measure light speed anymore, as the “ruler” has now been calibrated by the same object you are trying to measure!) But 299,792,458 m/s is close enough for me, and is not my bone of contention. 

The claim that light will always be measured to be going this fast, regardless of the relative speed of the person doing the measuring, or the speed of the light source, that is where I disagree. First, this claim flies in the face of reason and rationality. (it could still be true, but it must be looked at really carefully, because it’s an outrageous claim.) Next, no experiment can be conducted to demonstrate that this is the case. Every experiment will be open to other explanations, as we know very little about light anyway.

The Michelson and Morley Experiment, (and other more recent versions) proved absolutely nothing. It was a NUL result, meaning they could not detect anything. Which does not prove one way or the other that "the ether" existed. It only proved that this way of detecting the "ether" was unsuccessful. Also, later it was claimed by Relativists that this experiment supported SR. In fact it once again provided no useful evidence to support any theory, even SR. May as well spin a torch around that room and declare that because the beam reaches the 4 walls, then light is the same regardless of the motion of the torch. M&M experiment proved not a single thing. Nothing was demonstrated. So why is the invariability of light regardless of the motion of the observer so accepted? The reality is that it’s merely a Postulate with no way to prove that it is correct. It's an un-falsifiable claim.

Link to M&M Experiment video

Oh, this video looks great!, and Neil is so convincing, yet his statements are based on illogical conclusions. The experiment did not rule out the Ether, it just ruled out this method of trying to detect any such Ether.  There is no direct link between SR theory and the M&M test. How can an experiment performed (in earths atmosphere, or even in space) that sends a light beam exactly the same distance in two directions, demonstrate anything? Two meters this way is also two meters in that direction... whats the mystery?


Here is an extract taken from the popular internet site, “Physics Forums:”

    “…And the 2nd question: Do we know why is the speed of light 3*10^8 m/s? What determines this value? (I'm not asking about of units)”
        This is a very good question. Turns out that light speed is set by definition. The value it is set to (299,792,458m/s) was obtained averaging the results of the most recent and most precise experiments.
      Now, as to your thread title: "Why is the speed of light the same to any observer?"
The answer has been given by others already: it is a postulate derived from multiple experimental observations. Postulates are not explainable.

Link to Original Article

So I reject the invariability of light speed because,

1. The statement about light speed remaining the same for every frame, “...is a postulate derived from multiple experimental observations. Postulates are not explainable”, is debatable. Meaning that the multiple experiments can be interpreted a number of ways, and no experiment can be proof of anything in Physics. It can either support or not the hypothesis. “Support” is not proof.



2. There is no conclusive evidence, somebody needs to hop into a space ship able to travel at a good proportion of light speed and turn on the headlights, to actually see what happens. This is not going to happen.



3. Everything else in the universe that has a speed, obeys Newton’s laws, why should light not? (there is no explanation on this either)



4. Light speed is NOT invariant. It has already been demonstrated that it can be slower, so maybe it can be faster too! Currently we can’t test that.



5. If true, I would have to accept that time, distance and Mass all changed if I go fast. I don’t like agreeing with irrational statement if I can help it. When faced with irrationality, I suspect a mistake has been made somewhere. If accepted, then the conclusions of Special Relativity lead us down the path to insanity. (some say I’m already nearly there!)



Now there is another claim of Relativity that I reject, namely the application of the logic relating to the “inertial frames of reference” as used in Einstein’s thought experiments. No one disagrees with the concept of the effects of observing moving objects from different vantage points. What I disagree with is the messed up twist that Relativity does when considering "inertial frames of reference". Much of this information on this website will be aimed at revealing exactly what I mean by that statement.


I have tried to show here that Relativity incorrectly applies the concepts of the stationary and moving frames, and this is what leads to the incorrect formulas and conclusions. As others have pointed out, Einstein’s ‘Thought Experiment” approach to Physics leaves a lot of room for error to creep in. In his thought experiments, Einstein only evaluates the results of a minimum number of essential components. There is the barest minimum objects and actions available, for example, an inertial motion carriage, one stationary observer, one observer on the moving carriage, and a “light clock” inside the carriage. There exists nothing else in this scenario. However, any conclusions one draws from this experiment could be fatally flawed if important information or conditions are missing.

Having only part of the information required to come to a rational conclusion will probably lead to an incorrect result. All possible forces and motions must be considered exactly as we experience in reality. Otherwise the experiment applies only to an imaginary universe, which may not operate like ours.

This is precisely what has happened with the Theories of General and Special Relativity. They are playing poker with only half of the deck. Many Physics Professors begin a lecture on Special Relativity with statement such as “this is going to sound really weird”, “it’s counter-intuitive” and “It seems irrational and illogical, but what makes you think that the universe cares about your notion of what is rational? ”

It is because of these statements from Academia and the totally incredulous results of SR (Special Relativity- the time dilation, length contraction and Mass increase), that prompted me to examine Einstein’s Theory for myself, from the ground up, applying Carl Sagan’s wise advice, “Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary Evidence”.

Which brings me to the not insignificant problem of the claim of “massive amount of Scientific evidence and experimental data” that has been used to back up SR.I do believe that ALL the “evidence” can be better explained by conventional Physics theory that does not need SR. However, before we look at Data, Experiments and the conclusions drawn, we must be satisfied beforehand that the theory is worthy of moving to the stage of running experiments. If I examine any hypothesis, and find it totally in error, irrational, illogical, then it is not worth trying to devise any experiment to back up an obvious error. The Hypothesis needs to be scrapped, and a more robust Hypothesis offered. This is the state of SR. As a Hypothesis, it totally fails in every aspect. It appears to be totally incorrect. It is not even worth an experiment. I will illustrate this in 14 different ways in the "Examples" section.

Let me illustrate my claims about the danger of jumping into experiments before you have a rational hypothesis. Consider this little story. If I came to you saying, “I have tiny fairies living in my garden. I know they exist because I once, while taking drugs, I saw them. I want you to help me perform an experiment to prove they exist.”

“We need to obtain some Tibetan snowman toe jam, and a crystal bowl from the caves on the far side of Mars, then because Fairies love playing in this shit, any changes we see to the contents of the crystal bowl MUST surely be evidence of the Fairies!” Confronted with this story, you would not bother attempting to prove one way or the other if this hypothesis was correct. You would not want to experiment because it is an irrational hypothesis. (a popular alternative on the use of the word “irrational” which is often used by relativists is “counter- intuitive”, which sounds less insane, but essentially means the same thing in this situation. Only they are trying to dump the blame on to you, because of your “inability to understand”. I am claiming that relativity is an irrational hypothesis and does not deserve to get to the experiment stage. I also claim that because Relativity is incorrect, any conclusions drawn from any experiment that seem to support Relativity, can be better explained using conventional Physics.

In this document I will provide my examples that the Hypothesis of SR has  glaring errors that prevents a physicist from even developing an equation, let alone running the numbers. The reason why Time Dilation, Length Contraction and Mass Increase all sound weird and counter-intuitive is because they are simply, INCORRECT.

I propose that Special Relativity is flawed at its very core. That the basic postulate of “inertial frames of reference” is misleading, and that this “half-truth” postulate and its flawed application, is the root cause of error for all further concepts and downstream theories. “Equality of inertial frames of reference” is not an idea exclusive to Einstein, but it’s the application of this postulate, and the fact that the postulate is only half of the story, that leads to the many insurmountable errors in Relativity.

This section of this document is specifically about Special Relativity, but as I also believe that General Relativity is equally incorrect, I just use the term “relativity”. The errors I refer to are such concepts as “Time Dilation”, Length Contraction”, and “Increase of Mass” (or if you prefer, "Momentum Increase”, which is exactly the same thing as Mass increase anyway)

What the Examples show.

There are 14 examples that demonstrate the flaws in the hypothesis of SR. Each one looks at the concepts from slightly different points of view. Some will seem more or less appealing to the reader depending on their own understanding. None of the Examples call upon Mathematics, they are loosely based on thought experiments, good enough for Einstein, good enough for me. Some experiments show critical flaws in the concepts proposed by the Physicists Lorentz and Minkowski. Without Lorentz and Minkowski there is no SR for Einstein.

Summary:

This document represents my personal take on SR. I am aware that there are many others who have proposed their own reasons why SR is a failed Hypothesis. It is possible that some can be shown to be unconvincing or have even made serious mistakes. Other anti-relativistic theories and criticisms of Einstein’s work I believe are valid and are deserving of serious study. I will take Einstein’s advice, “If you can’t explain it to a barmaid, then you don’t understand it yourself” (or words to that effect) and in my debunking of the theory of SR, I will keep it so simple that anyone interested can follow the logic. Barmaids generally have little need for needlessly complex maths, so I will explain in other terms.

I actually will present more than one way to debunk SR. I will present them one by one. Each approaches the subject from a different point of view, so some proofs will appeal more than others depending on your personal preferences. As I will not be using mathematics, just “thought experiments” the reader should try to follow the concept behind my words, which as we all know, are not always perfectly able to convey a thought. The reader needs to try to follow the underlying concepts I am attempting to portray.

One big hurdle to overcome is that of terminology. The more you examine science, and Physics is a prime example, the more words can be interpreted differently by different thinking people. Is that color mauve or purple? Definitions are important and poor definitions lead to opportunities to twist ones intended message into some undesired direction. I want to try to go with a logical approach, with a sensible outcome, and try to work around different interpretations over definitions. So I have included a section “Definitions” at the end of this document, so we can be clear. Even when reading the Definitions, it is evident that all is not rosy with Relativity, as many key terms are either not defined in scientific terms, or are under-defined. For example, read 10 papers about Mass, and you will come away with 10 different variations of what it is, and its properties.

How science is done problem.

As many academics have pointed out, the way that Science progresses is not as perfect or as harmonious as is often portrayed by mainstream publications. The peer review process is open to the possibility of favoritism, protectionism, and peer pressure. No person who depends on his credibility and authority for his employment will easily or happily accept an idea that shows that everything he has achieved in his career is based on fallacies. It would be like someone presenting a theory that claimed that the Mormon religion was founded on lies and deception, to the leaders of the Mormon Church for “peer review”.

Some academics have noted that Science progresses by the death of a generation of scientists. It take a very long time for any new ideas to supplant old established concepts.

How can my ideas be taken seriously without Mathematical proofs? After all, Scientists won’t consider any ideas without supporting Mathematics. The universe is a Mathematical construct, or so it's claimed. 

 But I think that the use of Mathematics as the final and sometimes only evidence of a theory is a big over estimation of the usefulness of Mathematics. Consider this example of how one can trick oneself into accepting a false conclusion because of the ease of making an error. Not an error in the Mathematic execution, but an error of the way that Mathematics is used.

 Remember the old question that showed the different points of view between an Optimist and a Pessimist? 

Is the glass half full or half empty?

 Give this phrase to a Mathematician and here’s what happens.

Assign the label “F” to a full glass, and “E” to an empty glass.

Half Empty is equal to Half Full.

The equation becomes - 0.5*E= 0.5*F

To remove the 0.5 we can multiply both sides by 2.

        Resulting in an impossible E=F.   (empty equals full)

Now in this simple example we can easily see where the error was made. 

We went looking for the error, because it’s illogical that a full glass is equal to an empty glass. Yet this exact type of error is made continually within SR, but because the Math is more advanced, and because the original concept is never questioned, the error is never usually discovered. Nobody looks for the error. 

However the resulting conclusions of SR are about as logical as Full = Empty.

So for this reason I won’t use complex Mathematics, as it’s like putty, able to be twisted and molded to match the desired outcome. Behind every Equation is a theory, and if the theory is flawed, then the Math’s result will be misleading.

             

Mobirise
Author

Mark Ross
Derby
Tasmania  Australia

Contact

Email: zeccano(swap for "@")yandex.com