New YouTube videos

I've posted a bunch of new videos to YouTube regarding my Death to Einstein! ideas. These are completely unedited and raw videos. I stumble and stammer my way through the explanations (that's what happens when you don't rehearse, I guess), the lighting in the videos is poor, sometimes the video gets out of synch with the audio, and then there's my ugly face to contend with the whole time -- but if you can get past all those faults, I think I get some interesting ideas across.

The two below are the ones that have presentations of new ideas I haven't really written about anywhere, namely exactly WHY I think the time dilation/relativity of simultaneity thought experiments MUST be combined into one, and if relativity isn't able to combine them, then relativity is invalid. And obviously relativity isn't able to combine them.

I've posted a whole lot of similar videos, but I think the above two are the crucial ones. The others are basically a lot of rehashing of my ideas, with a lot of repetition within the videos themselves.

I think these types of videos are going to replace my blog. I like talking off the cuff and not having to organize my ideas into an arguably coherent book. These videos are more like stream-of-consciousness, just going wherever my thoughts of the moment takes me.

Here's a link to the main playlist that most of these videos are in:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_r5GVmgbpf_N3_qE6rwwhHWO5_q9jxPE

And here's a link to the Death to Einstein! playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_r5GVmgbpf9AxM-OLQKqV36VQ5DRKHt7

Higgs Boson not discovered?

Since I blasted the alleged "discovery" of the Higgs boson shortly after the announcement of it last year, you might think that I'd be crowing now that some apparently legitimate scientists are also questioning the discovery. Yeah, it's nice that others are now becoming vocal about it. But the group of scientists who have recently begun questioning the discovery are claiming that the alleged Higgs is actually something completely ridiculous that can supposedly explain dark matter. So basically they're saying that it's not the Higgs, but rather it's a telltale of dark matter or dark energy.

BS!

Then there's the story about the scientists who think the GPS system can be used to detect dark matter and dark energy. More BS. The thing in this article that really irks me is the following statement: "'Despite solid observational evidence for the existence of dark matter, its nature remains a mystery,' Derevianko, a professor in the College of Science at the University, said."

What solid observational evidence? The observational evidence doesn't fit the standard cosmological model. The observational evidence doesn't support Currently Accepted Theory. You cannot then fabricate entities such as dark matter and dark energy to explain why your theory doesn't work, and then claim that the observational evidence that undermines your theory is actually solid observational evidence for the entity you pulled out of your butt to save your defective theory! It's complete absurdity!

And so they're going to use the GPS system to detect this completely fabricated entity, dark matter. And when they actually discover discrepancies in the synchronization of the clocks, as outlined in their proposal, instead of taking that as evidence against the validity of Relativity, they'll say it's evidence of dark matter and dark energy.

This is how Science works? Observational evidence doesn't support one theory, so they fabricate an entity to save it, then when one of the methods used to detect said fabricated entity finds evidence that undermines a second theory, they'll use the defect in that second theory to prove the existence of an entity they fabricated to save the first theory. It's completely absurd!

A simple way to prove that simultaneity is NOT relative

Relativity makes the following claim:

“Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.

“Now before the advent of the theory of relativity, it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e., that it is independent of the state of motion of a body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity.” (Relativity Chapter Nine)

Einstein comes to this conclusion by using the thought experiment of two bolts of lightning striking either end of the train. An observer along the embankment sees the lightning strikes as simultaneous, while an observer inside the train, moving with respect to the embankment, is also moving toward the lightning flash at the front of the train, and receding from the flash at the rear of the train. The train’s observer will thus see the flash at the front of the train first, and conclude that the lightning struck the front of the train first.

Einstein uses this simple thought experiment to draw sweeping conclusions about the nature of time and simultaneity.

But adding a tiny detail to Einstein’s thought experiment will actually invalidate his conclusions about the relativity of simultaneity.

Let’s take Einstein’s thought experiment and add a simple device I will call a “simultaneity detector,” or SD. This device consists of several parts. First is a clock at the center of the train carriage. This clock need not be synchronized with clocks at the front and back of the train, or anywhere else. It’s simply a clock whose time can be independent of any other clock, since it will only be recording its reading of an event in its immediate vicinity. Next, there is a lightning rod at each end of the train, equidistant from the central clock. Each rod has an attached length of wire that feeds into the central clock. Each wire is exactly the same length as the other. The central clock is able to detect when a current reaches it through either wire, and records the time at that instant, so that any observer will be able to consult the clock for a readout of the exact time (according to that clock) that a current was detected in either wire.

Now, when the lightning bolts strike the lightning rods at either end of the train, a current will flow through the rod’s respective wire and reach the central clock, where the time of the current’s detection will be recorded.

How does this alter Einstein’s experiment in any significant way? Well, it takes the determination of simultaneity out of the realm of relativity and puts it into classical Newtonian-Galilean physics. This is because the current in the wire will not behave as the lightning flashes of Einstein's experiment does. Consider: electrical current is a flow of electrons within a wire. The wire is moving along with the train, and hence will obey classic addition of velocities, which light does not. Thus, the detection of current in the wires will be an arbiter of simultaneity.

How so?

Well, if the embankment observer sees the lightning strikes as simultaneous, while he will see the train’s observer rushing toward the forward flash and receding from the rear-ward flash, he will not likewise see the train’s observer rushing toward the front current and away from the rear current. The two currents will reach the central clock together and will each receive the same time stamp from the clock.

However, the train’s observer will see things differently. He will see the flashes as non-simultaneous, yet will be astonished to find that the central clock tells him the currents have the same time stamp. He will thus conclude that he must be moving.

Unlike with Einstein’s thought experiment, where the observers are free to accept that they disagree on simultaneity because there are no actual, physical consequences of such disagreement, the central clock cannot physically display different time stamps depending upon who consults it. There is an absolute fact as to what time the currents were detected, according to the central clock.

You might wonder why I don’t just have the central clock recording the time at which each flash reaches it. I’ll reiterate my earlier reasoning for you: the current in the wire obeys classic addition of velocities, while the light flashes, according to relativity, do not. The current in the wire is not light; it is movement of electrons.

Think about it. If the observer on the embankment were to consider the current in the way that he considers light, then he must also consider the train observer in the same way. Light does not hold to addition of velocities. If the electrons and the train observer likewise did not hold to such, then if the train’s observer were to walk from the rear of the train toward the front, then the rear wall would be racing toward him even as the front wall was receding, just as with the flashes of light. Same with the current. Even as the current from the rear flowed through the wire, the central clock would be receding from it even as the central clock raced toward the front current, and the central clock would stamp the current from the front as reaching it first, in conflict with the embankment observer’s assertion that the strikes were simultaneous.

You might object that the train’s observer would indeed drift backward if he were to jump up and down; he only moves forward with the train because he is attached to it. But this violates physics; remember Newton’s first law of motion, and Galilean relativity? Relativity doesn’t discard those. If you believe that the Earth is rotating, then if these laws weren’t true, you could jump straight up in the air and land in a different spot.

You might further object that I am incorrect. Current in a wire behaves the same as light, and thus the time stamps from the central clock will confirm the train observer’s conclusion that the front strike happened first. OK. But in such a case, we are left with physical evidence that contradicts the embankment observer’s assessment that the strikes were simultaneous. We now have the testimony of the train observer and the testimony of the central clock to contradict the embankment observer. This would allow the train’s observer to assert that the embankment observer is the one in motion, which on the face of it seems okay, since we now have reciprocity, one of the hallmarks of special relativity. Each observer is allowed to conclude that he is at rest while the other observer is the one in motion. But this objection, as I’ve pointed out above, comes at the cost of violating physical laws which relativity retains: “…in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at.” (Relativity Chapter Seven).

As simple evidence that electrons must hold to classical relativity, I offer the following: our bodies contain many, many electrons. So if you try to assert that electrons don’t hold to classical relativity and instead behave as light does, then you must throw out the classical principle of relativity, since EVERYTHING within the rocket (rocket, train, whatever) is made of electrons. Even the walls of the train. So if the ship, train, rocket, whatever, is moving at near light speed, in what sense could the outside observer say that he sees the train observer racing toward the forward flash even as he recedes from the rear flash? Matter does not behave like light. Matter adheres to addition of velocities, light does not.

NOTE TO SELF: But perhaps matter behaves more like light the faster it goes, so that at near light speed it is a lot more like light than matter. And perhaps in such a case the central clock actually CAN display two different time stamps depending upon who observes it, existing in both states until one or the other observes it, much like Schrödinger’s Cat. Connection between relativity and quantum mechanics? Even such a situation would still be a blow to relativity, since, as evidenced by Einstein’s thought experiments, relativity still considers matter to behave like matter even at relativistic speeds, as evidenced by matter adhering to the addition of velocities in the thought experiments

Now, I should point out that the weakness of the preceding is my assertion that electricity flowing through a wire does not behave like light, instead obeying addition of velocities. I can find nothing to support this assertion. I recall stumbling across an article long ago that confirmed this, but I have no idea where I stumbled across that article, and I can find nothing to support me now. But I can find nothing to refute my assertion either. But it seems reasonable to me that since electrons carry the flow of electrical energy through a wire, then they can’t behave in such a way that, were someone in a moving spaceship to flick a light switch on the front wall, then a light bulb at the center of the ship would turn on sooner than it would if the person flicked a switch on the rear wall. Such behavior would require the electrons to forsake the addition of velocities, and if electrons in a wire do so, why shouldn’t my entire body also forsake the addition of velocities? Such behavior would lead to a different world than the one we observe.

Anyway, realizing as I do that the weakness of my preceding thought experiment is its reliance on the wire current not behaving like light, I have a few variations on the thought experiment, using things that definitely don’t have a relation to electricity. These are earlier iterations of the above thought experiment. I actually wrote the following well before I came up with the final version as above.

Imagine a cube-shaped ship moving through space. There is relativistic motion between this ship and an outside observer. All the dimensions of the ship are exactly equal as measured by an observer within the ship. Also, there is a strip of some sort of substance connecting the forward wall with the aft wall, like a string or something. The strip, when struck by lightning, undergoes a chemical reaction that proceeds along the string from the source of the strike, so that it changes to a different color, the different color depending upon the source of the strike. Say a strike on the forward wall causes the string to turn blue traveling backward, and a strike on the aft wall causes the string to turn red traveling forward. The chemical reaction stops when each reaction meets the other.

It seems to me that the chemical reaction will travel along the string at a constant rate that can’t possibly depend upon the motion (or lack of it) of either the ship or an outside observer. In other words, you can’t run into a situation where the walls are moving toward or receding from the “leading edge” of the chemical reaction, since the reaction is relative to the string alone rather than relative to an observer, i.e. it’s not the same situation as light traveling fore or aft.

Now lightning strikes the fore and aft walls, kicking off the reaction, which travels along the string in each direction, heading aft along the strip from the forward wall, and running forward along the strip from the aft wall.

If simultaneity is truly relative, then when the reactions run their course, the length of the string that is red and the length that is blue will depend upon which observer examines the strip. If the outside observer says the lightning strikes were simultaneous, and he considers the ship to be in motion, then the string should be equal lengths red and blue when he examines it, the point at which blue turns to red being at the exact center of the ship. Likewise, when the ship’s observer, considering the strikes to have been non-simultaneous, examines the string, he should find that more of the string is red, the point at which red turns to blue being off center toward the rear of the ship. If simultaneity is truly relative, then the amount of red and blue on the string should be different depending upon who examines it, which should be physically impossible, therefore simultaneity cannot possibly be relative.

Here’s an even better visualization: imagine that the fore and aft walls of the ship are connected by a steel pipe, and that the pipe is filled with gunpowder. This is some sort of strange gunpowder that explodes at the point where the two flames come together, bursting the pipe. So the lightning strikes set off the gunpowder, and a flame runs forward from the rear wall and rearward from the front wall. Where the two flames meet, the pipe explodes, marking the spot. If relativity is correct, then the spot at which the pipe explodes will depend upon which observer we ask.

Better yet, let’s put a rifle at each wall, triggered by the lightning strikes. And the interior of a ship is a perfect vacuum, so that there’s no drag on the bullets. According to relativity, depending upon which observer we ask, the observer at the center of the ship is struck by both bullets at the same time, or he’s struck by the front bullet first.

All of the above versions transfer a relativistic problem into the realm of Galilean relativity. You could argue that the difference in the timing of the bullet strikes, or the difference in the amounts of red and blue on the string, or the position at which the pipe burst, as measured by either observer, would be too infinitesimal to measure, that such a Galilean experiment would be too “coarse,” or lack the temporal or spatial resolution to measure such relativistic effects, and is hence worthless, but that’s just avoiding the issue. I could argue back that in Einstein’s thought experiment, human observers couldn’t possibly tell with their naked eyes whether or not two lightning strikes are simultaneous because our conscious brains lack that sort of temporal resolution, and that Einstein’s thought experiment is worthless.

The take-home lesson from this thought experiment is that we can’t rely on our eyes and upon mathematical calculations to determine simultaneity. Just because someone SEES events as simultaneous or non-simultaneous, he is not justified in using mere math to support the conclusion of his eyes. There MUST be an absolute physical fact as to whether the lightning strikes are simultaneous or non-simultaneous.

Einstein Himself Responds to Me

Going back to an earlier post in which I said that the proper way to resolve the Twins Paradox is to follow it into general relativity where it belongs, which leads to the foolish nonsense of saying that the pressing of the brakes on Einstein’s train generates a gravitational field that causes the entire universe to lurch to a halt — today I’ve been heartened to discover that Einstein himself has already responded to my objections, in a short paper titled Dialog About Objections Against the Theory of Relativity. I came up with the ideas in my earlier post all on my own, and it pleases me to find that I’m treading in the footsteps of great minds.

And what do Einstein and his sock-puppet critic have to say about my criticism? (I say this facetiously. I actually do have great respect for Einstein. You can’t argue with the greatness of the theory he came up with, and that it took a brilliant mind to do it. I can acknowledge that, even as I acknowledge that the theory is complete bunk).

He agrees with me that the Twins Paradox can be resolved in terms of general relativity. And it’s basically resolved exactly how I said: the gravity field generated by the pressing of the train brakes, or the turning of the rocket’s steering wheel, affects the clocks of both frames, thereby resolving the supposed paradox.

Einstein’s hypothetical critic then asks what I basically asked: isn’t this gravity field merely fictitious?

To which Einstein responds: “..the distinction real - unreal is hardly helpful.” He says that it’s a real gravitational field as far as the observer in question is concerned, so let’s not quibble over unimportant things like real or unreal, gravity or pseudo-gravity.

And my answer to that? What a lame answer, Einstein! Bollocks! I call bull**** on this! I demand that we quibble over such terms!

He also talks about “just how little merit there is in calling upon the so-called ‘common sense…’”

So: Einstein’s considered response is basically that where relativity is concerned, we shouldn’t worry about concepts like real or unreal, and we shouldn’t appeal to common sense.

He further says that the main difficulty most people have when studying relativity is that “…the connection between the quantities that occur in the equations and the measurable quantities is much more indirect than in terms of the usual theories.” Read: relativity is mainly a theory of mathematical abstractions that has little obvious bearing on actual physical reality. Just as I’ve been saying all along.

In this paper Einstein also has some interesting things to say about the universe revolving around the Earth: “For example, strictly speaking one cannot say that the Earth moves in an ellipse around the Sun, because that statement presupposes a coordinate system in which the Sun is at rest, while classical mechanics also allows systems relative to which the Sun rectilinearly and uniformly moves…Nobody will use a coordinate system that is at rest relative to the planet Earth, because that would be impractical. However as a matter of principle such a theory of relativity is equally valid as any other…For the decision which representation to choose only reasons of efficiency are decisive, not arguments of a principle kind.”

In other words, if I choose to say that the Earth is in an absolute frame at the center of the universe, there is little the relativist can muster in the way of scientific principle or empirical evidence to refute me. The best relativity can do is to say, “Hey! Relativity demands that all reference frames are equal, so you can’t say there’s an absolute frame.” Yeah, well, since I don’t subscribe to relativity, then I’ll say it, and you can’t disprove me. It reminds me of an old Robin Williams joke about cops in England who don’t carry guns, so they can only shout, “Stop! Or I’ll say stop again!” The relativists, in effect, have no gun with which to force Geocentrists to cease and desist.

In reality, rather than the idiot being the one who proclaims that the Earth is at the center of the universe, the idiot is actually the one who proclaims that no way, no how can the Earth be at the center of the universe.

“But come on,” the relativist objects. “You can’t possibly believe that the Earth is really at the center of the universe, can you?”

What? So now the relativist wants to quibble over concepts like real or unreal? Again, in the words of Einstein himself, ““..the distinction real - unreal is hardly helpful.”

So as to whether we’re really at the center of the universe — why are we arguing about such trivial concepts as the reality or unreality of our position in the universe? Surely it can’t bother the relativist if one chooses to believe that we absolutely are at the center of the universe.

Gravity or pseudo-gravity, Earth-centered or non-Earth-centered, real or unreal, up or down, left or right, man or woman…these distinctions are hardly helpful, people.

Reciprocity in Relativity

In an earlier writing, I laid out a summary of The Facts according to relativity. Here they are again for reference:

The following is a summation of how two observers in motion at near light speed relative to each other view the situation, according to relativity. I call these The Facts.

From Observer A’s viewpoint:

• Observer B is in motion.
• Observer B is experiencing time dilation.
• Everything in Observer B’s reference frame (stationary relative to B) is length-contracted, as measured against a yardstick in my reference frame.
• We both measure the same speed for light.

From Observer B’s viewpoint:

• Observer A is in motion.
• Observer A is experiencing time dilation.
• Everything in Observer A’s reference frame (stationary relative to A) is length-contracted, as measured against a yardstick in my reference frame.
• We both measure the same speed for light. 

In the past, The Facts have led me to berate relativity, since it makes the prediction that two biological twins will each age more slowly than the other.

But let me reconsider The Facts. Basically, The Facts have each observer saying, “Everything is normal from my viewpoint, but I believe that everything is not normal from viewpoint of the other observer.”

Each observer reports that physically, everything is normal within his reference frame. He also expresses his belief that everything is not normal for the other observer.

Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? Each observer gives a description of his current experience of the natural world, as well as a description of what he believes to be the other observer’s current experience of the world.

Do you see it yet?

It does not matter what one observer believes about the other observer’s experience of the world. All that matters is each observer’s own experience. Both observers report that everything is normal in their reference frame. It’s completely irrelevant what each observer believes about the other’s reference frame! Both observers have firsthand experience that their world is normal. They have no experience of the other observer’s reference frame.

In the case of science, reality must trump belief, whether that belief is based upon logic or upon mathematical calculations. In other words, it is indeed a fact that both observers believe that the other is experiencing time dilation and other effects of motion. But if it is a fact that I believe Santa Claus exists, the fact that I believe in Santa Claus does not make Santa Claus exist. There is thus actually no conflict generated by The Facts, since we are free to discount the beliefs of each observer as to what the other is experiencing. The seeming paradox that The Facts predict that each biological twin will age more slowly than the other is due to a mere conflict of beliefs, a conflict that is resolved by allowing physical reality to trump beliefs about physical reality.

Both observers report that everything is normal. Therefore, everything MUST BE NORMAL in both reference frames! This is why, despite The Facts, both observers in my muon thought experiment in a previous writing report that their muons have decayed, in conflict with each observer’s expectation that the other observer’s muons should still be alive when they exchange their reports, which led me to discount the existence of time dilation when two observers are in relative uniform motion.

However, despite the preceding, there is experimental evidence that time dilation exists in the case of cosmic-ray muons when compared to their Earth-bound counterparts.

Taking this experimental fact together with my demonstration that time dilation is logically ruled out in the case of relative motion at constant velocity, it would appear that time dilation only exists within a gravitational field, or when an object undergoes acceleration. In all other situations, time dilation ceases to be a consideration, as it does not exist.

In light of this, one must wonder how Einstein came to theorize the existence of time dilation, since acceleration was excluded from the special theory. After all, according to relativity, time dilation is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light. But if it’s shown that time dilation does not exist in cases of uniform relative motion, then light speed should not be constant. It need only be constant for all observers undergoing acceleration or gravitation.

Of course, if light speed is not constant, then interferometer results once again become a problem. Unless you’re a Geocentrist.

But wait, you might object. If one of the observers, considering himself stationary, looks through a telescope at the other observer, he’ll see a clock on the other observer’s ship ticking more slowly. Therefore time dilation MUST exist.

My response: not really. Because depending on whether the other ship is approaching or receding when our observer looks through his telescope, he’ll see the other clock either ticking faster or slower. Do you really think the rate at which time passes depends upon the direction of the other ship’s travel? The Doppler Effect doesn’t tell us about time dilation. It tells us whether the ship is approaching or receding.

Yes, you object, but the time dilation is in addition to the Doppler Effect.

My response: Okay, fine. The rate at which time is passing depends upon which direction the ship is traveling. Throw a new complication into relativity if you want to. And then YOU try to explain why time dilation should depend upon direction of travel.

You could further protest that The Facts as I’ve formulated them presuppose my conclusion because The Facts are written from a subjective viewpoint. You protest that it’s not a subjective belief of one observer whether or not the other observer is experiencing time dilation. There is an objective fact that whichever frame is regarded as being at rest, the other is time dilated and length contracted. It’s not a matter of belief; it’s a matter of reality.

But isn’t “objective” another way of saying “absolute”? Isn’t bringing objectivity into relativity forbidden by relativity? Relativity involves being able to move from one subjective viewpoint to another and find that all viewpoints are equal. There is nothing objective about it. Relativity is inherently subjective.

Besides, by trying to rephrase The Facts objectively, you will basically be saying that it is an objective fact that whichever frame subjectively regards itself as being at rest…It’s redundant, because relativity requires that you assume the subjective viewpoint of one particular frame, but that you’re not bound to remain in that frame. But you are always viewing things subjectively from one particular frame. So The Facts are not framed in such a way that they presuppose my conclusion. They’re framed in the only way allowed by relativity.

Muons II

The following is a summation of how two observers in motion at near light speed relative to each other view the situation, according to relativity. I call these The Facts.

From Observer A’s viewpoint:

• Observer B is in motion.
• Observer B is experiencing time dilation.
• Everything in Observer B’s reference frame (stationary relative to B) is length-contracted, as measured against a yardstick in my reference frame.
• We both measure the same speed for light.

From Observer B’s viewpoint:

• Observer A is in motion.
• Observer A is experiencing time dilation.
• Everything in Observer A’s reference frame (stationary relative to A) is length-contracted, as measured against a yardstick in my reference frame.
• We both measure the same speed for light.

Applying The Facts to biological twins, one asks the relativist, “If one twin stays on Earth and the other goes on a rocket tour of the galaxy before finally returning to Earth, how can each twin have aged less than the other?”

And the relativist answers, “Because the twin on the rocket experiences forces (acceleration) during his trip that the Earth-bound twin does not. This breaks the symmetry and allows us to say that the Earth-bound twin is older upon their reunion.”

(Of course, I’ve written earlier that this answer is really a non-answer, because the instant you bring up acceleration, you’ve brought the so-called paradox into the realm of general relativity, which turns out to be simply shifting the problem without resolving it).

Applying The Facts to the situation of cosmic-ray muons, one asks the relativist, “If observation shows that muons generated by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere live longer than their twins who are stationary relative to the entire atmosphere, why do The Facts predict that each type of muon will outlive the other?”

And the relativist answers, “Because from their viewpoint, the cosmic-ray muons have the same life expectancy as ‘normal’ muons, but the upper atmosphere is length-contracted due to its motion, thus the cosmic-ray muons survive to reach the ground.”

“Yes, but,” one objects, “according to The Facts, from the viewpoint of the cosmic-ray muons, muons stationary relative to the ground and the atmosphere are the ones experiencing time dilation, and so should still be alive when the cosmic-ray muons reach the ground, and should actually outlive the cosmic-ray muons.

“According to Einstein for Dummies (page 141), muons in their own reference frame only live for 2.2 microseconds, while time-dilated muons live for 34.8 microseconds. So in the Earth’s reference frame, a muon on the ground will live for 2.2 microseconds, while a cosmic-ray muon will live for 34.8 microseconds. Conversely, the cosmic-ray muons will see themselves live for 2.2 microseconds, while an Earth muon will live for 34.8 microseconds. So how can each type of muon outlive the other, because the length contraction answer you gave doesn’t seem to pass muster?”

And the relativist answers, “Hey, I never said anything about one outliving the other. We were discussing why cosmic-ray muons are able to traverse the length of the atmosphere, which, without the relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction, they should not be able to do. Once they reach the ground, what they do after that is their business. They’ve reached the ground, therefore they’re experiencing time dilation.”

And one objects again, “Yes, but you’re not answering the question. Even after they reach the ground, relativity still predicts that each one will decay before the other. How is that possible? You said that in the case of the biological twins, acceleration broke the symmetry and let us know who was really aging faster than the other. There’s no acceleration in the case of the muons. So how do we explain that the cosmic-ray muons definitely outlive the Earth-bound muons? Because obviously they must, since we’ve already established that the cosmic-ray muons are the ones actually undergoing time dilation.”

The only possible resolution I can see is that, despite protestations about there being no acceleration to appeal to here, there actually is acceleration to appeal to here: there’s a gravitational field. And gravitation and acceleration are equivalent, correct?

The problem with this approach is that in this case, both sets of muons are within the same gravitational field. Granted, the Earth-bound muons are deeper inside the gravitational field, so maybe that breaks the symmetry.

But let’s appeal to acceleration anyway, as in the standard Twins Paradox, thereby dragging the problem into the realm of general relativity. As I wrote earlier in another bit of writing, this leads us to pseudo-gravity and other considerations, which ultimately leads to the fact that all reference frames are not created equal, thereby sounding the death knell for relativity.

And anyway, what about the case of muons far enough out in space that they are essentially in a gravity-free environment? Suppose we have two rockets in relative motion at near light speed, each carrying a cargo of muons in its stern. The Facts predict that the cargo in each ship will decay before the cargo in the other ship. So which ACTUALLY decays first? There’s no gravity or acceleration to appeal to here to break the symmetry.

I suppose the relativist would object that it’s meaningless to ask the question, because if they attempt to get together to solve the problem, one of them must accelerate to match speeds with the other, thereby breaking the symmetry (but not really, because due to general relativity, we can say that the one who activates his thrusters to apparently maneuver into position with the other rocket is actually merely generating a gravitational field that affects the entire universe, causing the universe and everything in it to accelerate, which is absurd).

Suppose they simply communicate by radio, to which the relativist would object that there’s no hope there due to the meaninglessness of NOW when considering two observers in relative motion. Trying the radio method complicates the issue by adding a relativity of simultaneity problem.

OK, then. Do it this way: we have two identical rockets ships in constant relative motion at near light speed, and one or the other is said to be moving along a straight line that runs parallel to the other ship. Each ship is so long that the muons in its own reference frame, if traveling at near light speed in the absence of time dilation, would decay before they were able to traverse one ship length. The two ships are so closely situated that when their sterns are aligned, a small protrusion in the stern of each ship will just contact the same protrusion in the other ship without causing any impediment to the relative velocity, allowing the exchange of a brief burst of information as to the status of each ship’s cargo. The Facts predict that each ship should receive a burst saying that the cargo of the other ship has decayed. And each observer will say to himself, “Wait a minute! This violates The Facts! That other guy’s cargo should have outlived my own!”

Now wait a minute, I myself protest. Haven’t I been ranting that relativity predicts that each biological twin will outlive the other, yet due to symmetry-breaking acceleration, upon their reunion the twin finds that the Earth-bound twin is older? Why does my little thought experiment above now predict that both sets of muons are decayed at the brief instant of their would-be union?

It’s because I have just logically shown that time dilation in the absence of gravitational influence does not exist.

And since the thought experiment I outlined above is actually just the standard cosmic-ray muon/Earth’s atmosphere setup moved into outer space, what I’ve shown is that The Facts predict complete reciprocity in the decay, which the relativist modifies to predict asymmetric decay due to gravitation, which is what is found in actual experiment.

What we must conclude at this point is that time dilation, by relativity’s own logic, is caused either by gravitation or acceleration, not by simply moving at constant relativistic velocity.

Further following this logic, it must be the case that only things undergoing acceleration or being influenced by gravitation can be time-dilated. When we compare two frames that are simply in relative uniform motion, neither frame will be time-dilated.

Let me outline my logic in case it isn’t clear.

First, we have The Facts, as given at the start of this essay.

Next, we have my thought experiment involving two rockets each carrying a cargo of muons. Each rocket is so long that, in the absence of the existence of time dilation, muons traveling at near light speed would decay before they traversed the length of the rocket. Thus, in the time it takes the moving rocket to traverse the length of the stationary rocket, the stationary rocket’s cargo will have decayed (since each rocket regards itself as being at rest and thus not experiencing time dilation as given in The Facts). Thus, when the protrusions on the stern of each ship come into contact, each rocket will report that its cargo has decayed. In other words, neither cargo of muons has outlived the other as predicted by The Facts, thus leading to the inescapable conclusion that time dilation cannot be a reality in this case.

Continuing. We then have the case of the long-lived muons, where cosmic-ray muons traveling at near light speed outlive their Earth-bound counterparts. This is proven by experiment. According to the general relativistic explanation, this asymmetric deviation from the symmetric prediction of The Facts is caused by gravity. But both sets of muons (Earth-bound and upper-atmosphere cosmic-ray muons) are experiencing gravity. However, the cosmic-ray muons are experiencing an increasing gravitational force. They start off in the upper atmosphere where gravity is slightly weaker, and travel downward, into increasing gravitational strength. It thus cannot the mere presence of gravity which breaks the symmetry in the case of the cosmic-ray muons, but changing gravitational strength, or potential.

Considering both situations, I conclude that, if time dilation exists, it must be caused by gravity or acceleration, and that time dilation only exists when either is present. Time dilation is not present in the absence of gravity or acceleration, regardless of relativistic velocity.

Okay, I guess I’m done rambling now.

Muons I

I’m writing a series of essays on cosmic-ray muons, in addition to the video I already did. Why am I doing this? Can’t I explain my ideas in a single essay? No, I can’t. I wrote one, then started second guessing myself and thought of more stuff I might need to address, so I started a second, trying to tackle the subject from a slightly different angle. Then I started second guessing that one, and started a third…

At this point I’m not even sure which one I wrote first, since I keep coming back to each to add and modify, even while working on the others. So if they seem out of sequence, blame it on that. I’m really good at overwriting, and on leaving in details that I think might be or know to be erroneous or superfluous, simply because I don’t want to delete a train of thought that I might snag onto at a later date.

Anyway, some single essay may be incomplete or fail on a key point, but hopefully I’ve written enough to address the fails or unclear points, so that taken together they all get my idea across. Besides, I doubt I’m the first person to see this fatal flaw in the contention that muons are experimental verification of relativity (in fact I know I’m not), so if I don’t get my ideas across, surely someone else has or will.

******

One of the oft-touted experimental verifications of length contraction and time dilation is the case of the long-lived muons. Muons decay rapidly and thus normally live extremely brief lives. However, muons generated by cosmic rays high in the atmosphere and traveling at relativistic speed are able to survive long enough to reach the ground, which their “normal” counterparts (i.e. muons at rest in the observer’s frame) would not be able to do. The speeding muons thus outlive their “normal” counterparts.

In other words, let’s say we have a laboratory on the ground which contains 20 muons, and an observer within the laboratory. We also have 20 muons that have just been generated by cosmic rays near the top of an extremely tall mountain, and these muons speed toward the ground. By the time these muons hit the ground, all 20 muons in the laboratory will long since have decayed. The reason the traveling muons haven’t decayed, and have managed to hit the ground, is that for them, time is dilated and is passing at a slower rate, thus they decay more slowly compared to the “normal” laboratory muons.

But — time dilation is reciprocal, right? From the viewpoint of the “traveling” muons, they are actually standing still, while the ground and the laboratory muons speed toward them at relativistic speed. The laboratory muons are thus experiencing time dilation, and thus should outlive the “normal” muons, which are now the “traveling” muons.

I smell a Twins-type paradox here. Which set of muons actually outlives the other? Seems to me that according to reciprocal time dilation, they should both outlive the other, which is physically impossible.

However, according to relativity’s supporters, everything is fine and dandy. I quote from Relativity and Its Roots by Banesh Hoffmann:

“Let us now look at the situation from the point of view of an observer moving so as to keep pace with the muons. Since the muons are stationary relative to him, he will not observe a relativistic slowing of their decay rates. But he—and the muons—will see the mountain rushing toward them with almost the speed of light, and therefore relative to them the mountain will be much shorter than it was for the observer on the ground. And since, relative to the muons, the factor by which the height of the mountain contracts is the same as that by which, relative to the ground, the time was slowed, the number of muons reaching the level of the base of the mountain will come out the same in either frame of reference.”

That’s all well and good. But who would ever assert that in one frame, only, say, 5 muons will reach the ground, while from another frame, 10 muons will reach the ground? Who exactly is questioning that there will be a discrepancy in the number of muons that reach the ground? This is not a photon analysis problem, where we’re trying to account for all the photons in the Twins Paradox.

The issue is time dilation, not the number of muons reaching the ground. The issue is which set of muons actually outlives the other, not the number of muons reaching the ground.

My whole point is, this whole muon business is supposedly a demonstration of time dilation and length contraction. The whole premise is that the cosmic-ray muons outlive their “normal” counterparts because they’re moving at nearly the speed of light.  So why does the relativist say, “Oh, the mountain is shorter from the traveling muon frame by the same degree that time is dilated from the mountain’s frame, therefore the number of muons reaching the base of the mountain is the same in both frames. Problem resolved.”

Huh? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

It’s a non-sequitur. Keep your eye on the ball, people.

There’s a Twins Paradox here that can’t be resolved by claiming that acceleration breaks the reciprocity, as in the actual Twins Paradox.

The mountain is completely irrelevant to the whole discussion. We could just as easily postulate a stationary mountain next to the “traveling” muons, and say the “traveling” muons are stationary at its base. Each frame will then have a tall mountain stationary next to it, with each mountain in one frame inverted relative to the other frame, so that from whatever frame, one set of muons will be speeding toward the base of the mountain in the opposing frame. Thus, from Earth mountain’s frame, the mountain in the frame of the cosmic-ray muons will be length-contracted for the “normal” muons. Only now, we see, there are no such things as “normal” muons. There are only muons in relative motion to one another, and the “normal” muons are merely those muons which happen to be stationary relative to whatever observer we’re considering.

So the Earth muons might just as easily be considered as the cosmic-ray muons, and vice-versa. The length-contraction of the mountain is completely irrelevant. But if you insist on using it, put a mountain in both frames and apply reciprocal time dilation as relativity says must be allowed lest the theory be invalid.

When this is done, each set of muons, viewed from the other frame, will theoretically live to reach the base of the mountain in the other frame, even though experimentally only the cosmic-ray muons reach the base of the mountain, for which relativity has no explanation, since they can’t resort to acceleration in an attempt break the symmetry.

See, here is the heart of the problem: from the viewpoint of the Earth muons, the cosmic-ray muons are still “alive” long after the Earth muons are “dead.” And reciprocally, from the point of the view of the cosmic-ray muons, the Earth muons are still “alive” long after the cosmic-ray muons are”dead.” It’s a physical impossibility. It’s like saying that I lived forty years and my cousin lived fifty years, or vice versa, depending upon which one of us you ask. It’s impossible, and so the theory that gives rise to such impossibilities is an incorrect theory.

The reason the long-lived muons is allowed as a proof of relativity is that proponents only consider the situation with muons in a single frame, with relative motion between that muon-containing frame and a second frame. If you insert muons into both frames, each stationary relative to their own frame, then the Twins Paradox arises, casting the whole situation in doubt and desperately in need of a resolution that doesn’t come, because in this situation you can’t appeal to acceleration to break the symmetry.

The case of the long-lived muons is another iteration of the Twins Paradox, and it has no resolution. The case of the long-lived muons, rather than supporting relativity, actually presents a problem for relativity. The muons disprove relativity, and thus it’s outrageous that it’s touted as a proof of relativity. The muons are, in actuality, proof that proponents of relativity don’t actually understand their own theory, or that they carefully pick and choose which aspect of experimental evidence they’re willing to consider. If the full implications of a bit of experimental evidence don’t support the theory, then they ignore the full implications and only consider the evidence insofar as it supports the theory.

See, here’s a typical statement of the muon “problem:”

“The measurement of the flux of muons at the Earth’s surface produced an early dilemma because many more are detected than would be expected, based on their short half-life of 1.56 microseconds. This is a good example of the application of relativistic time dilation to explain the increased particle range for high-speed particles.” (Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html)

That’s it. There are more muons, therefore time dilation. End of story. But that’s NOT the end of the story. That’s far from the end of the story. The muons are a huge problem for relativity. But I will say this. The above excerpt is correct. The muons ARE indeed “a good example of the application of relativistic time dilation to explain the increased particle range for high-speed particles.” The muons ARE indeed a good example of how relativity is very shoddily and selectively applied to explain physical phenomena. Sure, we can explain the muons using time dilation. But we’ll ignore the rest of the story of the muons, which is a Twins-type paradox with no resolution, thereby disproving special relativity. You can’t even resort to the ultimately dead-ended explanation of symmetry-breaking acceleration, since there’s no acceleration involved in the muon problem.

The standard spiel of the Twins Paradox asserts that the paradox is resolved due to the fact that the traveling twin experiences forces, due to acceleration, which the stay-at-home twin does not experience. Inherent in this is the implied fact that if no acceleration occurred, the paradox could not be resolved. If the case of the long-lived muons can be shown to be an iteration of the Twins Paradox, and I think it has been shown to be such an iteration, then the paradox has not been resolved, because there is no acceleration.

So why do cosmic-ray muons outlive their “normal” counterparts? I don’t know, but I DO know that it’s not for the reasons relativity puts forth. Look elsewhere for an explanation.

Murderers and Pedophiles and Geocentrists, oh my!

I was just browsing some forums where Geocentrism vs. heliocentrism was being debated, and ran across some interesting comments.

One involved a guy saying that the need to invent “fictitious” forces to explain things in a geocentric universe, forces that only existed on a geocentric Earth, was proof that an absolute Geocentric frame did not exist. The guy in question didn’t specify exactly which “fictitious” forces he was referring to, but I suspect he may have meant Coriolis and centrifugal forces. Never mind that those forces exist in a rotating reference frame, which the Earth is not (rotating, that is) in a Geocentric universe. Although, of course, in some Geocentric models the Earth is rotating, but not moving through space.

So, thought I. This guy thinks that, when he uses a physics developed for a non-Earth-centered universe over the last few hundred years, it is significant that he has to modify that physics to accommodate an Earth-centered universe, and that the need to make such modifications somehow proves that we don’t live in an Earth-centered universe.

That’s ridiculous. Don’t say that shortcomings in your own model are actually shortcomings in the other guy’s model.

I should rather think it would be strange if Earth occupied a special place in the universe and there were NO forces unique to it.

Having to modify non-Earth-centered physics to explain an Earth-centered universe could just as easily be taken as proof that we don’t live in a non-Earth centered universe. In such a case, the so-called “fictitious” forces are not really fictitious at all. Maybe they’re real, and the rest of your physics is “fictitious,” or at the very least, inadequate.

I also found it interesting that a great many of the comments are extremely vicious and nasty. Apparently, a person who believes the Earth is at the center of the universe is right down there with murderers and pedophiles in terms of the public’s contempt. There’s some sort of deep-seated and irrational hostility that is stirred up by the mere mention of Geocentrism. “Geocentrists are stupid; they’re liars, cheats and whores who will say anything to twist your words; they’re best avoided, because you can’t have any sort of logical, intelligent, peaceful or honest debate with them; they’re scum, because everyone knows that the Earth isn’t at the center of the universe, it’s so well-known and proven that we don’t even need to discuss it. Besides, if you really are stupid enough to think the Earth is at the center of the universe, then your puny mind couldn’t possibly understand my rebuttal, so I won’t even bother. So just shut your mouth, damn you! Just shut up! Freaking religious wacko! Crawl off and die somewhere, why don’t you? Scumbag! Tea Party butthole. You probably voted for Bush, you right-wing neo-con! Geocentrism! Bah! I spit on your grave! Get out of this forum, and take your intolerance and idiocy with you! You hateful bigot!”

Geez. All that merely because someone coughs and says, “Geocentrism.”

But to be fair, I think they were forums where a lot of atheists hang out. So, well…you know.

Seriously, though. That’s the level of debate on a lot of the forums. A Geocentrist tries to explain his position, and instead of an intelligent rebuttal, he’s met with, “You’re stupid! You’re so freaking stupid! The Earth can’t possibly be at the center of the universe. Everyone knows that, so I won’t even discuss it. But you’re wrong! You’re stupid! Geostationary satellite! ‘Nuff said! Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m giving a lecture to my physics class in ten minutes. Retard.”

And no, I didn’t make any comments on the forums. I merely lurked and read what has gone before.

But mainstream science has been developing a non-Earth-centered model of the universe for a good five hundred years. Over the course of that development, there have been a great many things that are unexplainable based on the state of the mainstream model at that time. But despite this, the standard model was retained, and development continued until the model COULD explain the previously unexplainable.

So if you point out anything at all that can be explained in terms of a non-Earth-centered model, but cannot currently be explained in terms of an Earth-centered model, don’t conclude that that therefore means the Earth-centered model absolutely does not and will never work. There are huge problems and gaps in your own standard model, but do you take this as evidence that your model is wrong? Of course not. You make up things like dark matter and dark energy to spackle over your gaps, having faith that dark matter and dark energy will eventually be discovered.

It’s wholeheartedly stupid and disingenuous to assert that, in light of the history of the development of the non-Earth-centered model, a bit of polishing and development of the Earth-centered model could not eventually explain the very things which you point out are currently unexplainable other than with a non-Earth-centered model.

Why is it that when a gap in standard physics is exposed, it’s viewed as an opportunity for further refinement of the theory, a positive thing, but when a similar gap in geocentric physics is exposed, it’s viewed as an impassable brick wall for Geocentrism, a show-stopper, the end of the line?

For example, from what I’m reading, opponents of an Earth-centered universe believe that geostationary and geosynchronous satellites are the most damning piece of evidence against Geocentrism. Geocentrism can’t currently explain those things, therefore geocentrism will never be able to explain those things, and Geocentrism is therefore disproved.

But shouldn’t you rather be saying that a non-Earth-centered physics cannot explain those things in terms of an-Earth-centered model?

And anyway, there are already at least a few explanations that I’ve run across to explain geosynchronous satellites in terms of Geocentrism. So the assertion that Geocentrism cannot explain them is demonstrably false.

The weakness of standard non-Earth-centered physics in explaining observations in terms of an Earth-centered model is a strike against standard non-Earth-centered physics, not against the tenability of an absolute Earth-centered model.

The fact is that human ingenuity can come up with tenable and consistent theories to explain any observation. That’s what makes us so great. We can come up with multiple theories to explain the same observation, all of them tenable, or with the potential to be made tenable with enough development. It’s all a matter of which theory you want to invest your time and your life in.

And maybe that’s what mainstream, dogmatic scientists don’t like. They aren’t comfortable with the notion that there could be other theories waiting in the wings, equal to their own, thereby rendering their life’s investment worthless. And Geocentrism is the most diametrically-opposing theory out there, for the standard model of cosmology. So of course it gets a guttural, trapped-in-a-corner kind of primal reaction from proponents of the standard model. The Copernican principal is fundamental to standard cosmology, so of course people who fundamentally reject the Copernican principal are going to be the object of an instinctive hatred for proponents of the standard model.

The truth is that IF you care to look deeper into the issue than flinging ad hominem attacks against Geocentrists, AND you can get past your a priori assumption that the Earth cannot possibly be at the center of everything, then you will find that Geocentrists are on a much firmer foundation than you think they are.

New Death to Einstein! video

I've put a new Death to Einstein! video on YouTube. This one is on the long-lived muons that are allegedly evidence of time dilation and length contraction.

This one is way too pixelated, so I'll be swapping it out with a higher-resolution render sometime over the next few days or weeks. But this one looks okay on a 7" tablet at least (bit of an eye strainer, though), so I'm leaving it up for now.

Death to Einstein! ebook is now FREE

Death to Einstein! the ebook is now free:

Smashwords

Google Play

More on general relativity

I’m going to go back to the subject of an earlier post, from a different direction.

In discussing the Twins Paradox, Banesh Hoffmann, in his book Relativity and Its Roots, says”

“Actually, the twins cannot legitimately be treated reciprocally, as in the preceding paragraph. There is a crucial difference between them that is best seen by making the reversal of direction of the spaceship after one year an abrupt one—say, one taking 30 seconds. Then the traveler would experience a deceleration force of about a million times the pull of earth’s gravity, and he would at once be squashed flat against the wall of his spaceship. But when we look at the situation relative to the travelling twin with the stay-at-home twin now the apparent traveller, the stay-at-home twin would nonetheless experience no such lethal force, while the traveller still would.”

But there’s a problem with this. The instant acceleration or deceleration is brought into the picture, the immediate thought should be, “Okay, at this point, I have to look at it from the perspective of general relativity.”

So you should then immediately go to the paragraph in Relativity where Einstein says:

““My body of reference (the carriage) remains permanently at rest. With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period of application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards and which is variable with respect to time. Under the influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner that their original velocity in the backwards direction is continuously reduced.”

Once you do this, the contention that the twins cannot be treated reciprocally is refuted. They can be treated reciprocally. The twin in the rocket simply claims that a gravitational field, whose existence coincides with the rocket twin turning the rocket’s steering wheel, causes the entire universe to swing around 180 degrees so that the rocket is once again facing the Earth.

And both the rocket twin and the rest of the universe experience this gravitational field, since according to Einstein, “Under the influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves non-uniformly…” Meaning that the gravitational field apparently called into existence by the turning of the rocket’s steering wheel (or the firing of its maneuvering rockets, however you want to look at it) acts upon the Earth, and by extension, the entire universe. And obviously the same gravitational field acts upon the rocket twin as well, since according to both Einstein and Hoffmann, the rocket twin feels a ‘jerk.’ There’s no getting rid of that pesky ‘jerk.’

So looking at it from the rocket twin’s viewpoint, both he and the Earth twin are subjected to the same gravitational force during the turn-around, in conflict with Hoffmann’s assertion that “when we look at the situation relative to the travelling twin with the stay-at-home twin now the apparent traveller, the stay-at-home twin would nonetheless experience no such lethal force, while the traveller still would.” Bringing general relativity into the situation, as is proper, shows that they’re both subjected to the same force.

How can it be said that the stay-at-home twin, considered as the one traveling, experiences no force? Einstein clearly, explicitly says that the stay-at-home twin, considered as the one traveling, does experience a force. Let me repeat Einstein’s exact words yet again: “Under the influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner that their original velocity in the backwards direction is continuously reduced.” Again, repeat after me: from either the viewpoint of the train or the rocket, “under the influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner that their original velocity in the backwards direction is continuously reduced.”

When the rocket twin is considered at rest and he turns the rocket’s steering wheel, a gravitational field comes into existence that acts upon the entire universe, rotating it around the rocket and causing the Earth and consequently the entire universe to begin moving past the rocket.

This is relativity! I am not misunderstanding this or misquoting anything! Mathematics are not necessary! This is simply the logical application of Einstein’s own ideas.

Here is the logical analytical path that must be followed, not according to me, but according to relativity’s own “rules”:

Special relativity claims that time dilation is reciprocal. Okay. So far so good. Bring in the twins and the rocket. Time dilation should be reciprocal, and each twin should be aging faster than the other. But it’s not, relativists claim, because acceleration is involved. Okay. Must switch to general relativity then, since special relativity only applies to uniform motion. So far so good. Bring in general relativity. In doing so, we immediately find that the twin situation is still reciprocal, despite earlier protestations that situation wasn’t reciprocal due to acceleration.

The problem is that most scientists apparently don’t follow this logical pathway, as they should.

Now, someone will probably object that I’m falling into a trap that Einstein warned about just a few paragraphs earlier:

“Before proceeding farther, however, I must warn the reader against a misconception suggested by these considerations. A gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact that there was no such field for the coordinate system first chosen. Now we might easily suppose that the existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent one.”

The gist is that the gravitational field experienced by the rocket (the one that rotates the entire universe around the rocket) only exists from the viewpoint of the rocket. It’s only an apparent field, since it only exists for the twin in the rocket. This is the reason why he’s the only one who feels the jerk.

But Einstein’s warning was against supposing that this means that all gravitational fields are merely apparent. That’s not what I’m doing here, so I’m not falling into the trap Einstein is warning about.

So with that objection out of the way, let me finish. But keep that objection in mind, because I’m going to use it against itself.

Bringing general relativity into the Twins Paradox as we must since acceleration is involved, we find that the situation is indeed reciprocal, despite the claim that it wasn’t, because the rocket twin is “compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a ‘real’ acceleration.” He is free to attribute the acceleration he feels in turning around to a gravitational field rotating the universe around his rocket.

But this is only an apparent gravitational field, not a real one, in light of Einstein’s warning about the trap, as outlined above. The rocket twin is free to interpret the acceleration as a gravitational field acting upon the entire universe…but it isn’t really. It’s only an apparent field, existing only for the twin in the rocket.

You might think this means that all gravitational fields are merely apparent if you choose the correct reference frame (Einstein’s trap). But it doesn’t mean that. Because only “those of quite special form” are apparent. For example, you can’t choose a reference frame from which the Earth’s gravity vanishes (meaning it’s only an apparent gravitational field).

So how do we know which gravitational fields are merely apparent? Apparently (no pun intended) the only apparent (i.e. not real) gravitational fields are those that exist solely from the viewpoint of an observer that is actually in motion, but is pretending that he isn’t.

And thus we’re once again handed a way of determining absolute motion.

Back to Einstein’s warning against the trap of regarding all gravitational fields as apparent: what is the chest Einstein mentions, and what was the coordinate system first chosen?

The coordinate system first chosen was a location in space so far removed from any gravitational field that it satisfies the requirements for Galilean relativity. The chest is basically just a rocket under constant acceleration relative to this first hypothetical Galilean frame. The man in the chest, says Einstein, is experiencing what he believes to be a gravitational field, since he regards himself as being at rest.

Einstein’s point is that the man in the chest thinks he’s experiencing gravity, but there’s no gravitational source in the Galilean frame.

And this, I think, is one of the fundamental errors of general relativity. Einstein establishes that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent, if not one and the same. And so acceleration and gravitation can be treated equivalently.

But, Einstein warns, obviously gravitation and acceleration are not the same, because you can choose frames where the apparent gravitational field can be made to vanish entirely, which will show that it was really only ordinary acceleration. But you can never choose frames where certain types of gravitational fields will vanish entirely, and these are actual gravitational fields rather than apparent ones.

Of course, that’s not what Einstein explicitly says, but it’s the actual meaning of what he says, when he warns not to fall into the trap of thinking all gravitational fields are merely apparent.

Basically, it is doublespeak. Gravitation and acceleration are equivalent, so they can be treated as if they’re the same, but they’re not really the same, because they’re two different things.

And it’s obvious that they’re two different things. If I push or pull an object at a constantly increasing rate, obviously it is not gravity acting upon the object. Yet Einstein says we should treat the two as if they’re the same. But, he warns, only up to the point where we’re unable to treat them as if they’re the same. We secretly know which objects are really moving and which really aren’t, but everyone is free to pretend that we don’t really know which are really moving. It’s absurd!

So what it boils down to is that the Twins Paradox isn’t really a paradox because it’s never in doubt which twin is actually traveling. And how do we know which twin is actually traveling? Because there are unequal reference frames, in direct violation of relativity (some contain actual gravity, others merely apparent gravity)! Because relativity tells us it’s okay to pretend that completely different forces are actually the same force. Certain types of acceleration may be due to gravity, but not all types of acceleration are due to gravity, but we can pretend that all types of acceleration are due to gravity, as long as doing so doesn't lead to physical impossibilities, such as two twins each being younger than the other. Thus we can pretend that the each twin is aging more slowly than the other, until we try to reunite them.

In other words, relativity appears to be a valid principle, until you push it too far and discover that it’s actually invalid. Just as certain gravitational fields are merely apparent, relativity itself is merely apparent.

Spacetime Curvature

According to General Relativity, gravity is caused by a curvature of spacetime. Earth’s mass distorts the spacetime surrounding it, causing objects to accelerate toward Earth. So if I’m holding an object in my hand and let it go, the curvature of spacetime between the object and the Earth causes the object to accelerate downward.

We’re all familiar with (I assume) the picture of Earth sitting at the center of a dip in a tablecloth or a grid or what have you, which is often used to illustrate how Earth warps spacetime.

Now, I have issues with this view of gravity, since some sort of force is still needed to send an object moving “down” the curvature toward Earth. Otherwise, if I let something go, as described previously, why does the object not just “sit” at a point on the curvature? What makes it go “rolling” down the curvature toward Earth, which we see as gravity? It seems to me that the standard relativistic explanation is no explanation at all, because you still need some sort of force to set the object “rolling” down the curvature.

Now think of this. The Earth is moving through space (allegedly). So theoretically, someone could say that that answers my question about the curvature. Earth moves toward the object I’ve just released, mimicking gravity. But again, this explanation is obviously flawed, since it then negates the need for spacetime curvature to explain gravity. Also, it only works for objects that are in “front” of the Earth, in its path. Objects “behind” Earth, when released, would recede from Earth, or rather Earth would recede from the object, giving the appearance of anti-gravity. Also, this attempted explanation doesn’t work because the object in question already shares the (alleged) motion of the Earth due to classical, Newtonian physics. So there’s not the slightest hope of an explanation here. Absent gravity, if I let go of an object, it will continue in motion with the Earth, appearing to hover next to my hand. Which is precisely my point with the spacetime curvature explanation as well. What makes the object accelerate “down” the curvature?

Anyway.

In General Relativity, the cause of gravity is attributed solely to spacetime curvature. Let’s ignore my question as to what causes an object to accelerate down the mass-induced curvature, and just accept that curvature somehow translates to acceleration, which we view as gravity, and that spacetime around Earth is curved.

And here is where I’ve been going with all the above:

Earth is allegedly in motion. This means, obviously, that the spacetime “dimple” in which the Earth sits is moving through spacetime as well. What this means is that the edge of the dimple in the direction of the Earth’s motion is sort of “bowing in,” for want of a better description, while the edge of the dimple “behind” Earth is “springing back” into its standard position.

In other words, if gravity is due to curvature of spacetime, and Earth is in motion, then, depending upon whether an object is fore or aft of the direction of Earth’s travel, the spacetime curvature between that object and Earth is warping in a different “direction.” On one side of the Earth, spacetime is warping, while on the other side, spacetime is unwarping.

See, the spacetime curvature around Earth is not static. For an object to the fore of Earth, the spacetime curvature between it and the Earth is warping “downward,” while for an object to the aft of Earth, the spacetime curvature between it and the Earth is warping “upward.”

As an analogy, think of two buoys in the water, with a wave moving past. The buoys will not bob up and down in tandem. First, one buoy will bob upward as it encounters the wave. When it reaches the crest, it will begin bobbing back down, even as the second buoy begins bobbing upward.

So at any given time, the spacetime curvature between objects ahead of Earth and behind it is not equivalent. To the fore of Earth, the curvature is “bobbing upward,” while to the aft of Earth, the curvature is “bobbing downward.” Or vice versa.

In a static model with a motionless Earth, the curvature would be equivalent all around Earth. But in a dynamic model, with a moving Earth, the curvature is not equivalent all around Earth. And it’s hard to believe that this lack of equivalence in curvature would not have some sort of noticeable, measurable effect on the force of gravity.

(I know, I know. Gravity is not a force, according to relativity, but rather a curvature).

What I take this to mean is that the force of gravity acting on an object to the aft of Earth will be weaker than the force of gravity on an object to the fore of Earth.

Of course, the Earth is allegedly rotating, which complicates the picture. But not beyond hope of reducing the “noise” to detect the difference due to Earth’s motion.

But I predict that a satellite in a stationary position in the direction of Earth’s alleged motion, not rotating with the Earth but traveling at the same speed, such that it maintains a constant distance from Earth while remaining within Earth’s path through space, will measure a slightly stronger force of gravity than will a satellite in a similar position trailing Earth through space.

Here is a more refined prediction: at any given location along the equator, the force of gravity will be strongest at local dawn, and weakest at local sunset. Or vice versa, depending upon whether an increasing warping of spacetime corresponds to increasing gravity or decreasing gravity.

Of course, this increasing or decreasing warping could manifest as some property of gravity other than strength or weakness. If what we experience as the “attractive force” of gravity is curvature or warpage, then a dynamically-changing warpage could be some other gravitic property that we haven’t yet discovered.

Anyway, moving on.

The view or model that I’ve put forth in the preceding is basically this: we have a spacetime Point A that lies ahead of Earth in its orbit. As Earth approaches this Point A, A will begin warping, curving. Point A’s warpage will increase until it reaches a maximum when it is aligned with the center of the Earth. Once Earth’s center begins moving past point A, point A’s warpage will begin decreasing, until it reaches its “default” warpage, i.e. it will return to the state it was in before Earth’s approach.

Now, the relativist will object that I’m taking an absolutist view of spacetime. The real model should be this: the spacetime Point A, rather than being embedded in an absolute space as I’ve described, is actually just a point which maintains a constant distance from Earth. Thus, all the way around Earth, we can imagine a variety of such points, whose curvature or warpage depends only upon their distance from the center of the Earth, which remains constant.

In this relativist view, if we adopt the perspective of an outside observer, say one attached to the Sun, we will see Earth moving through space enshrouded by a “cloud” of spacetime points which maintain a constant position relative to the Earth.

In other words, in my absolutist view, Point A is embedded in an absolute space, with a constantly changing position relative to the moving Earth, while in the relativist’s view, Point A moves along with the Earth, maintaining a constant position relative to the Earth.

In the relativist’s model, spacetime around the Earth will not be dynamic as I’ve described. It will be static. The relativist simply says that at any given distance from the Earth (or any massive object), each point in spacetime will have a slightly different degree of curvature, but the degree of curvature does not change, nor does the position of the spacetime points.

In my absolutist model, Earth (or any massive object) is moving against a backdrop of spacetime points, and the curvature of these points changes as Earth (or any massive object) moves past. Some points are warping, while others are unwarping.

So in the absolutist model, the position of spacetime points can change with respect to massive objects, while in the relativist model, the position of spacetime points cannot change with respect to massive objects. But both models agree that spacetime points can have differing degrees of curvature.

In effect, the absolutist model holds that gravity (spacetime curvature) is absolute, while the relativist model holds that gravity (spacetime curvature) is relative. In the latter model, spacetime curvature is relative to whatever massive object is under consideration.

These are the only two options I can see. Spacetime curvature is either static and carried along with an object and is not connected to anything external, or it is a dynamic effect in an elastic medium. Put another way, we can imagine a bunch of boats moving about on a lake, causing ripples in that lake as they move; or we can imagine a bunch of boats, each of which is surrounded by its own ripples, but there is no water and there is no lake.

But if we look at the usual descriptions or illustrations of curved spacetime as put forth by the relativists themselves, it is apparent that they’re looking at spacetime curvature from the absolutist viewpoint. In which case, there MUST be some difference in gravity depending upon whether gravity is measured in the direction of Earth’s motion, or opposite the direction of motion.

Of course, the relativist will say that there shouldn’t be a difference, since that would mean that we’ve detected absolute motion. In which case, they will be forced to abandon the standard illustrations of spacetime curvature, such as the oft-used illustration of Earth rolling across a flat, grid-lined surface, with the grid lines curving downward as Earth rolls across. You know the one I mean.

Adopting a relativist view of spacetime curvature also forces us to abandon the assertion that spacetime curvature is dynamic, or changing. Think about it. If the spacetime Point A remains at a constant distance from Earth, and curvature equals gravity, then in an absolutist model, the curvature of Point A cannot change, for if it did so, the gravity at a specific distance from Earth would be constantly increasing, and would soon reach infinity. In other words, a relativist view of spacetime curvature does not work. The only way a curved view of spacetime is feasible is if we allow that Point A changes its position relative to Earth, and its curvature either decreases or increases depending upon whether its distance from Earth is increasing or decreasing. The only way for gravity to stay the same at all points is if one point receives a certain degree of curvature, then moves aside and another takes its vacated position, receiving the same amount of curvature.

There must be a continual cycling of spacetime points, or else the strength of gravity at any given location will quickly spiral beyond all physical possibility.

So the standard relativistic explanation of gravity as spacetime curvature demands that we adopt my absolutist model, which leads us to the detection of absolute motion, which leads us to the destruction of relativity (special relativity, at least). 

So let’s say that we perform experiments and find that there is no difference in gravity when measured from the direction of Earth’s motion and the opposite direction. What would such lack of difference mean? It would mean that relativity is not a correct theory. And if such a difference were detected, it would mean that special relativity at least must be rejected, since absolute motion has been detected.

Either way, relativity is once again doomed.

OK. FORGET the part above about gravity constantly increasing and spiraling to infinity. I see my error there now. But this is exploratory writing, after all. I’m trying to clarify my thoughts here, and follow them to where they’re leading. But I’m leaving the error in case maybe later I decide I was right in the first place.

But - to continue - the spacetime curvature at Point A or any other point still cannot remain static. The curvature has to be able to change. For instance, let’s say we have a Mass B sitting at a distance from Earth, stationary relative to Earth. Ignoring the principle that the gravity of every object is felt throughout the entire universe, there is a point where Earth’s gravity is essentially negligible and Mass B will basically be in a non-gravitating, “ground” state where Earth has no influence on Mass B. For ease and the sake of this argument, we’re also pretending that all other nearby masses aren’t affecting Mass B. Now, unless we’re subscribing to the absolutist view that all spacetime points are embedded in an absolute sort of “gravitational” space, there should be no reason that Mass B will be gravitationally affected by the approach of Earth. For gravitic spaces cannot be contiguous in a relativist view of gravity, because if Earth’s Point A is somehow connected with a similar Point A of Mass B, then gravitational space once again becomes absolute. So the curvature of one mass’s spacetime should not be felt by another mass.

Therefore we’re forced back to my absolutist model of spacetime.

Back to my Mass B. If Earth approaches Mass B and gravity works, which it obviously does, then common sense says that the Point A associated with Mass B, provided it is between Earth and Mass B, will feel the effects of Earth’s gravity before Mass B does. In other words, the curvature of Mass B’s own Point A will change. And since Earth’s own Point A also lies between Earth and Mass B, then Mass B’s Point A is actually responding to the curvature of spacetime at Point A, rather than responding directly to the mass of Earth. Which will confirm that the two seemingly relative spacetimes are actually part of one absolute spacetime, which is the medium for gravity.

From this it follows that Earth’s own Point A, rather than remaining static, must constantly be changing due to the approach of Earth. Which itself means that Point A cannot be stationary relative to Earth, but rather is behaving exactly as I outlined in my absolutist model, namely that all points are stationary and embedded in a “gravitic” spacetime, and the curvature of each point changes according the approach or recession of any given mass.

Why do I say that this proves that Point A must be constantly changing due to the approach of Earth? Because since curvature, not just mass, obviously must be able to curve spacetime, and the outer edge of Earth’s curvature first affects the outer edge of the curvature around Mass B, this can only mean that the curvature caused by Earth is advancing ahead of the Earth, curving spacetime ahead of Earth. This means that Point A, if it is on the lip of Earth’s curvature, will “drag down” an uncurved point immediately in front of it, while Point A will be “dragged further down” by a point immediately behind it and closer to Earth. Ultimately this means that if spacetime curvature truly is seen by us as gravity, then it must work according to my absolutist model.

In other words, the fact that two masses can interact gravitationally proves that gravitational space must be absolute in the manner I’ve described. Masses can’t carry their own curvature around with them in the relativist fashion. If they did, gravity would not work. And since gravity obviously works, it must be absolute the way I’ve described.

I guess it’s a bit like a wave in water. The actual wave is an abstraction; it’s a sort of optical illusion. In reality, all that exists are individual water molecules moving up and down or forward and backward, within a limited range. A wave does not consist of a mass of water molecules being swept along for enormous distances. An ocean wave itself may travel hundreds or thousands of miles, but the individual water molecules comprising it merely briefly bob up and down or back and forth, within the space of a few inches or feet.

The relativist view of gravity pretends that the abstract wave in gravitational space is the reality, when in fact the opposite is true: a portion of gravitational space merely does the equivalent of bobbing up and down as a mass passes. Or, if the mass stays in one place, that portion of spacetime stays “depressed.” Once the mass moves away, that portion of spacetime “springs back” to its normal position.

Okay. That’s my initial writing on this subject. And it’s another disproof of relativity. Experiments will either show that gravity is different depending upon whether it’s measured along the direction, or opposite direction, of Earth’s motion, thereby detecting absolute motion and disproving special relativity. Or experiments will show no difference, thereby proving that gravity cannot work as Einstein theorized, thereby disproving general relativity.

Or…experiments will show no difference, providing support for the view that Earth is motionless at the center of the universe.

Either way, relativity is doomed.

Someone may still object that the degree of spacetime curvature all around the Earth is still the same, even if spacetime curvature works as in my absolutist model. The curvature will be the same regardless of whether one adopts an absolutist or a relativist model. This is true. But such an objection misses one of my main points: in the absolutist model, there’s a dynamic other than degree of curvature at work. In the absolutist model, there is an actual absolute Point A (many more than one point, of course) past which Earth is moving.* This Point A will gradually increase in curvature as Earth approaches, reaching a maximum when it coincides with Earth’s center. Then it will begin decreasing in curvature as Earth moves away from it. In essence, on one side of the Earth, we will find a stream of points increasing in curvature as they move toward Earth’s center, or at least toward a central plane perpendicular to the line of Earth’s motion, and then decreasing in curvature once they pass the center. There’s an asymmetry which should surely be manifesting as some detectable physical phenomenon.

* It’s important to note that this point is not some sort of particle; it is not accelerating as if drawn toward Earth by gravity; it is gravity itself, or curvature of spacetime. Let’s not confuse the two. I’m not postulating a new particle here. Strictly speaking, this wouldn’t even actually be a point; it would be a relatively large region of spacetime encircling the Earth. You know, like any point at a particular distance from the Earth (which distance would constantly be changing). The curvature of spacetime in this entire region would be changing mostly identically as we followed Earth’s journey through space.

Of course, all this brings up something for further consideration: people and things that are parallel to Earth’s direction of motion, or its opposite, will be passing through warping space that is descending on them from above, or receding upward from them, depending upon which side of the planet they’re on, while people and things that are perpendicular to the direction of motion, or its opposite, will be passing through warping space that is approaching or receding from the sides. So in addition to whatever sort of effects might arise from approaching or receding warpages, we also must consider from which and into which direction the warpages are approaching or receding. Simply put, in the absolutist model, the warpages would not all converge upon the center of the Earth, or whatever mass is being considered. This should be a clue that perhaps we aren’t looking for variations in the strength or weakness of gravity in a particular direction, but rather some other property of gravity.

What other properties of gravity are there?