In the past,
most of my ranting against Relativity has been confined to the special theory.
Now I’m going to rectify that and focus on general relativity.
So here goes.
At the end of
Chapter Eighteen of Relativity (which is in the general relativity section of the book), Albert Einstein says that it seems impossible to generalize special relativity
to all motion both uniform and non-uniform, as evidenced by the simple
consideration of applying the brakes to the train in his thought experiment.
Applying the brakes causes the train occupants to feel a jerk that compels us
to “grant a kind of absolute reality to non-uniform motion.” But he assures us
that this conclusion cannot be upheld.
He then
presents the equivalence of gravitation and acceleration, and at the end of
Chapter Twenty, he returns to the situation where the brakes are applied on the
train and the occupant feels a jerk as the train decelerates. But now, Einstein
says that in light of what he has just presented, the occupant of the train “is
compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a ‘real’ acceleration (retardation)
of the carriage,” since the occupant is alternatively free to say that during
the application of the train brakes, “there exists…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.”
Okay. So according
to Einstein, when the brakes are applied, the train’s occupant, instead of
concluding that the jerk he feels is due to the train stopping, can just as
validly conclude that the pressing of the brakes somehow generates a gravity
field that causes the Earth, and by implication, the entire universe, to stop
moving past the train!
Yes, that seems
a perfectly reasonable conclusion for the occupant to make.
Of course,
suppose the occupant of our train decides to examine how the brakes work. Will
he not wonder how a simple device that stops the spinning of the train’s wheels
also somehow generates a gravity field that affects the entire universe? If
you’re going to allow this notion, then you’re going to have to come up with an
explanation/theory of how the application of simple friction to a spinning
wheel generates a gravitational force that acts on the entire universe.
*****
Think about it.
Say I have an overturned wagon, so that the wheels are spinning freely, in
contact with nothing but the air. According to Einstein’s little exposition at
the end of Chapter Twenty, the act of pressing a stick against the spinning
wheel of my overturned wagon (braking the wheel) should generate a gravity
field. Where’s the explanation for how this is possible?
Let’s overturn
my wagon so that I can propel it down a road with myself seated inside.
According to Einstein, I can validly regard myself as stationary, and that if I
press a stick against the wheel of my wagon, this generates a gravity field
that retards the motion of the entire universe rushing past me.
For that
matter, forget about my applying the brakes. Consider this. If I propel my
wagon down the road, eventually friction will drag it to a stop. Or,
alternatively, the entire universe moving past my stationary wagon is dragged
to a halt simply by rubbing against the tires of my little wagon.
Sure. Entirely
reasonable.
*****
Back to our
occupant of the train. Suppose he also constructs an exact duplicate of his
train in miniature, and places it on a miniature track within his own train,
and sets this toy train in motion. Is he likely to allow that the toy train can
equally be regarded as stationary, and his own larger train truly in motion,
and that the application of the toy train’s brakes somehow causes the larger
train to gradually coast to a halt?
Come on. How
can anyone in their right mind grant an equal reality to the train being
motionless and the rest of the universe being in motion, when such granting
must allow that a relativity small force applied to a simple mechanism like a
brake can decelerate the entire universe? This is an absurd notion, and seems
entirely unreasonable. And yet the people upholding this view scoff at the
seemingly equally absurd notion that the entire universe revolves around the
Earth.
Imagine a
billion planets spread throughout the universe, each with millions of
automobiles moving around upon the planet on their own individual courses,
randomly braking and maneuvering about. This would mean that billons upon
billions of gravitational fields would constantly be generated and then die as
soon as the brakes were let off, billions upon billions of gravitational fields
constantly popping into and out of existence, billions upon billions of gravity
fields, each powerful enough to affect the entire universe.
That’s the
logical conclusion from Einstein’s ideas.
And yet I’m the
crackpot for even merely considering the possibility that the Earth may be
motionless at the center of the universe.
Ha.
*****
I am not
putting words into Einstein’s mouth, or misinterpreting his idea. He says it
explicitly at the end of Chapter Twenty: a train applying its brakes generates
a gravity field that stops the entire universe moving past the train. That is
relativity for you, folks.
Once again,
here are Einstein’s exact words, from Chapter Twenty of Relativity, (The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an
Argument for the General Postulate of Relativity):
“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.”
Sure, you may
object that he says that the gravity field reduces the velocity of the Earth
and the embankment, and says nothing about the entire universe. But the entire
universe is inherent in that, since obviously the relation of the train to the
entire universe is changed, not just the relation of the train to the
embankment and the Earth.
You could also
object that he never says that the application of the brakes generates the
gravitational field. He merely says that the field exists during the
application of the brakes. So according to this objection, we have a
gravitational field which is present the instant the brakes are pressed, and
which vanishes the instant the brakes are released. And this happens every
single time the brakes are applied. But this is merely a coincidence. The
application of the brakes doesn’t cause the gravitational field.
Yeah, right.
You could
further object that by “gravity field” he means “acceleration,” since gravity
and acceleration are equivalent, according to relativity. But this does nothing
to dilute my argument. Whether the application of the brakes produces a gravity
field or an acceleration (deceleration), the entire universe is affected by the
application of the brakes.
*****
Which brings me
to another point. Can you imagine how much force it would require to decelerate
just the Earth, let alone the entire universe? Force equals mass times
acceleration, according to Newton .
It seems to me that if the entire universe (or just the Earth, if you like) is
moving past the train, say at 70 miles per hour, the amount of force needed to
decelerate the mass of just the Earth, let alone the mass of the entire
universe, would break the braking mechanism of the train.
Consider this.
If I’m in my car on the highway, and the Earth and all those other cars on the
highway are moving past me at 70 miles per hour, if I were to apply the brakes,
I should think that the necessary force would wear my brake pads to atoms and
snap the braking system to pieces long before they managed to decelerate the
Earth so that I could safely get out of my car.
But apparently,
somehow, the mere act of tapping my brakes with a tiny bit of force from my
little old feet inexplicably generates a momentary gravity field powerful
enough to skid the entire universe to a standstill.
Ya gotta love
relativity.
*****
But for the
sake of argument, let’s ignore the absurdity of Einstein’s assertion. Let’s
allow the train observer to say that when he applies the train’s brakes, a
gravitational field is generated which retards the motion of the universe
rather than the carriage.
Everything is
fine in such a case, yes? Relativity survives unharmed.
Wrong!
And here’s why:
With the above
allowance in mind, let’s backtrack to special relativity and the famous Twins
Paradox. The standard spiel is that there’s really no disagreement on which
twin actually ages, because the twin on the rocket experiences acceleration
midway through his trip when he turns around and heads back toward Earth, thereby
breaking the time-dilation symmetry and allowing us to determine which twin
truly aged.
So basically,
the Twins Paradox is resolved by saying that the conundrum belongs to the realm
of general relativity rather than special relativity, because acceleration is
involved.
Okay, fair
enough at that point. But the situation is left
at that point. No one pursues the Twins Paradox into general relativity.
They’ve swept the dirt out of special relativity, so everything is fine and
dandy, case closed.
But not so
fast. The standard spiel has put the Twins Paradox into general relativity, so we
are obligated to follow it there before proclaiming that the paradox has been
resolved and special relativity is saved.
When we do, we
find that the observer inside the rocket, in keeping with Chapter Twenty of Relativity, is “compelled by nobody to
refer this jerk to a ‘real’ acceleration (retardation) of the carriage.” Or
rocket, in the case of the Twins Paradox. He can with equal justification say
that the rest of the universe experiences a gravitational force when he turns
the steering wheel of his rocket, which causes the entire universe to swing
around and head back toward his rocket. Or, in more detail, somehow the turning
of the rocket’s steering wheel (yes, rockets have steering wheels, didn’t you
know?) generates a gravitational field that causes the entire universe to
rotate 180 degrees around the rocket and begin moving toward rather than away
from the rocket.
Keep in mind:
I’m not the one being absurd or facetious here! The absurdity is Einstein’s. I’ve
simply applied Einstein’s statement at the end of Chapter Twenty of Relativity to a rocket rather than a
train carriage. I have added nothing here! I am not misquoting,
misinterpreting, misunderstanding or misusing Einstein’s ideas! Here again for
convenience is Einstein’s exact statement:
“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.”
This is how Einstein saves general relativity
from an ignominious end at its very inception!
*****
So, anyway,
back to my point: the standard spiel of the Twins Paradox is to appeal to
acceleration on the part of the rocket which breaks the symmetry. But upon
closer examination, general relativity negates that appeal by stating that the
rocket observer is justified in claiming that he doesn’t experience
acceleration, but rather that rest of the universe experiences a gravitational
force. Which puts us back to square one with the problem of the Twins Paradox.
So if we let
stand Einstein’s statement in Chapter Twenty, then the resolution of the Twins
Paradox is no resolution at all. The fact of the matter is that the Twins
Paradox is irresolvable without violating both special relativity (as I show in
my book Death to Einstein!) and
general relativity.
Put yet another
way, since I like to say the same thing multiple times in multiple ways: the
standard spiel says that the Twin Paradox is resolved because the rocket
experiences acceleration midway through its trip. But the rocket’s acceleration
is from the viewpoint of the twin on Earth. General relativity says that the
rocket’s observer is equally justified in his claim that he’s stationary the
entire trip. So upon what, exactly, does the standard resolution of the Twins
Paradox base its decision to choose the Earth twin’s viewpoint as the correct
one regarding the state of the rocket’s non-uniform motion? It’s a completely
arbitrary choice.
Sure, it’s not
arbitrary solely from the viewpoint of special relativity (at least it’s not if
we completely ignore what I pointed out in Death
to Einstein!). But the mere act of involving acceleration puts the
situation in the realm of general relativity, and when we examine it from that
viewpoint, both observers can with equal justification view themselves as being
at rest despite any relative acceleration, which leaves the Twins Paradox alive
and kicking, because the choice of regarding the rocket as accelerating is
completely arbitrary, based upon nothing other than the fact that there is an
absolute, physical fact as to which twin has aged more upon their reunion. And
relativity, as I hope I’ve shown, has in fact no way of determining which one
has aged more, other than by making an arbitrary choice to align theory with
reality.
*****
Now, a further
objection might be raised: when the rocket steering wheel is turned and the
gravity field is generated, the entire universe, including the stay-at-home
twin, experiences a burst of time dilation due to the gravity field thus
generated, and thus the stay-at-home twin ages more rapidly due to a
faster-ticking clock.
The problem
with this objection is that the twin on the rocket is also subjected to the
same gravity field generated when the wheel is turned. That pesky ‘jerk,’
remember? What causes this jerk if it is not the gravitational field being
generated? So at that point the rocket’s clock will be experiencing the same
rate of time dilation as the rest of the universe, meaning that while either
the Earth or the rocket are turning around (depending upon whose viewpoint you
adopt), both twins are aging at the same rate. Which leads us to logically conclude
that the only reason the stay-at-home twin ages more rapidly is because he’s
dwelling in Earth’s gravitational field the entire time, and thus his clock is
constantly running faster than the rocket’s clock. In the end, we see that the
rocket trip—the other twin traveling at close to the speed of light—actually has
nothing at all to do with the Twins Paradox. It’s irrelevant to determining
which twin grows older.
In other words,
the preceding objection leads logically to the following conclusion. Suppose
both twins originated on a space station that is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, space-wise, so that the space station is free from any gravitational
influence whatsoever. The rocket’s twin then takes his journey and returns. In
such a case, both twins will be the same biological age both before and after
the rocket trip, since both twins are subjected to identical gravitational
forces. So the only sort of time dilation which will have any measurable effect
on anything is time dilation due to “immersion” within a gravity field.
The implication is that motion, either uniform
or non-uniform, has no effect on physical processes. If we have two
synchronized clocks, biological or not, and they’re still synchronized after
one takes a round trip near light speed, then obviously neither clock was in
any way affected by the trip—as long as they are both subjected to identical
gravitational fields, i.e. one of them was not located on a planet or a star
for the duration of the trip.
*****
So to
summarize: at the very beginning of his presentation of general relativity,
Einstein states, “At all events it is clear that the Galilean law does not hold
with respect to the non-uniformly moving carriage. Because of this, we feel
compelled at the present juncture to grant a kind of absolute physical reality
to non-uniform motion, in opposition to the general principle of relativity.
But in what follows we shall soon see that this conclusion cannot be
maintained.”
In other words,
if it can be shown that the above conclusion can be maintained, then general relativity cannot be maintained.
And after
several chapters, the reason he gives that the conclusion cannot be maintained
is that the carriage can justifiably claim that the Earth and the embankment,
rather than the carriage, experience the force.
So we are free
to either reject general relativity based on the absurdity of his reasoning for
maintaining the conclusion—or we can accept his conclusion, which consequently forces
us to recognize an unresolvable violation of special relativity that proves the
existence of absolute motion, thereby demolishing relativity as a whole.
Like I said, ya
gotta love relativity.
