Response to "A Geocentrist vs. Relativity" by Martymer81

Response to Youtube video “A Geocentrist vs. Relativity” by Martymer81

1:22 Have you actually read the original Michelson-Morley paper? I would say no, because your 5-point outline is a complete misrepresentation of it.
According to your bullet points, the hypothesis of Michelson-Morley is (1) “Light is a wave in a medium, the aether (or ether).” The alleged consequence of this hypothesis (2) is that “The Earth moves through the aether at at least 30 km/s, the Earth’s orbital velocity.”
(2) is actually NOT a consequence of (1). It is an assumption independent of (1), and was explicitly labeled as an assumption in Michelson’s 1881 paper, and implicitly labeled as such in Michelson-Morley’s 1887 paper. Both your prediction (3) and your conclusion (5) are dependent upon the truth of that assumption. Anyway, (1) was NOT the hypothesis of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The title of the 1887 paper was “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminferous Ether,” which gives a pretty good idea of exactly what the experiment WAS about. Is the paper titled, “On the Question of the Ether’s Existence” or “On the Question of Whether Light is a Wave in a Medium”? No. The actual hypothesis of the 1887 experiment was one of Fresnel’s, that “the ether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media.” It had to do with the question of whether the ether is entrained in objects moving through it, NOT with whether the ether actually existed. The existence of the ether was another assumption of the experiment. It’s even clearer in Michelson’s 1881 experiment: “The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.” The conclusion of the 1887 paper: “It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel's explanation of aberration.” Part of Fresnel’s explanation being that the ether is stationary except in the interior of transparent media. Where exactly in the paper does it state that the conclusion of the experiment is that there is no ether? It isn’t even implied. Einstein, decades later, was the one who said there was no ether. The point: your 5-point outline of MM is riddled with errors and a conclusion based upon a biased misstatement of the true experimental hypothesis.
Here is a summary of the experiment inferred from your 5-point outline of it:
Light is a wave in a medium, the aether (or ether). Therefore the Earth moves through the aether at at least 30 km/s, the Earth’s orbital velocity. The experiment failed to detect Earth’s motion through the aether. Therefore the aether does not exist.
Completely illogical. Neither of the “therefores” follows from the assertion in their respective preceding sentences. A more accurate summary of the experiment, NOT a summary of the experiment as re-interpreted in hindsight by relativists to support their theory (which is what your 5-point summary is), is:
The aether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media (according to Fresnel’s theory). Assuming the Earth moves against the aether at at least 30 km/s, the experiment will detect such motion. The experiment failed to detect such motion. Therefore, Fresnel's explanation of aberration (stationary ether -- NOTE: NOT NO ether) is entirely refuted.
You have misrepresented/misstated/mischaracterized the entire experiment to fit your biased interpretation of the results. Use it as evidence in favor of relativity if you’d like, but at least give an honest summary of the experiment. Is your position so weak that it can’t withstand an honest summary? 1:36 “And you do realize that the experiment has been repeated with more sensitive equipment, right?”

So they just have more accurate data that there is no relative motion between the Earth and the ether. Or that Fresnel’s hypothesis of a STATIONARY ether is incorrect. So what? Repetition of the same experiment with more sensitive equipment does not change the hypothesis of the original experiment or its conclusion. An increase in the accuracy does not change the fact that the experiment is only designed to detect the relative motion of the Earth and the ether, NOT to detect whether the ether actually exists. You DO realize this, right? As I said to some other commenter, the failure of a car’s speedometer to detect relative motion between the car and the road is not evidence that there is no road. It is evidence that there is no relative motion. Anything more is your own explanation of WHY there is no relative motion.

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. NGC 6205 and CoolHardLogic, Part 1

Comments on YouTube video “TestingGeocentrism Part 2” by CoolHardLogic

NGC 6205 wrote:

I agree with you that a geocentric reference frame is a valid reference frame. I use it when I observe the night sky. However, you do not understand that the absolute geocentric reference frame is debunked by demostrating that there are other reference frames which are also completely valid. That's because absolute geocentricism, or capital G geocentrism claims that it is the only, One True Reference Frame. That's what absolute means. It claims that geocentrism is more valid than heliocentrism, which is false. It is actually no more valid than marscentrism or venuscentrism or jupitercentrism. If you were to build a "Neo-Tychonic" model (which I suppose you adhere to) with Mars at its center, and then go to Mars, it would make exactly the same number of successful predictions as a geocentric Tychonic model used on Earth. Furthermore, you can take a simulation of the Neo-Tychonian model and let it run. Pause it. Go to the Sun and fix your position (your view of the simulation) above the Sun. Unpause the simulation. What you would see is pure heliocentrism. That means that the Neo-Tychonic model is actually a heliocentric model in which the observer is fixed relative to the Earth, rather than the Sun. It also goes vice-versa: heliocentrism is a Neo-Tychonic model in which the observer is fixed relative to the Sun rather than the Earth. Besides the position of the observer, the two models are completely equivalent. This is why absolute geocentrism is false: because there are many different valid reference frames besides the geocentric one, while the capital G geocentrism claims that it is the one true reference frame, more real or correct than other reference frames. Special and general relativity are not required to prove that absolute geocentrism is false. And this is why you are biased and a pseudoscientist. You adhere to one reference frame absolutely and reject the others, despite the fact that other reference frames are completely valid. Only reason I can find for this is religious in nature. If your reason for adhering to geocentrism is not religious, then please tell me which is? Why are you adhering to geocentrism as more true than heliocentrism or marscentrism or jupitercentrism?

Scott Reeves wrote:

“However, you do not understand that the absolute geocentric reference frame is debunked by demostrating that there are other reference frames which are also completely valid.”

You are correct. I do not understand that the absolute Geocentric reference frame is debunked by demonstrating that there are other reference frames which are also completely valid. I do, however, understand that it is debunked by demonstrating that there are other reference frames which are also completely valid and equal to the absolute Geocentric reference frame. Which has not yet been done.

I completely understand the concept of reference frames, and I do not deny that every conceivable reference frame is a valid reference frame. But the simple existence of other valid reference frames does not mean that all valid reference frames are equal.

“That's because absolute geocentricism, or capital G geocentrism claims that it is the only, One True Reference Frame. That's what absolute means.”

That may be your concept of what absolute G means, but to me it refers to absolute rest vs. relative motion, and actual center vs. relative center. Relativistic geocentrism says that there is no actual center to the universe and all motion in the universe is relative, with no absolute motion, period; while absolute Geocentrism says the universe has a center and Earth is stationary there, and all motion in the universe is relative to the frame of absolute rest as established by the absolutely motionless Earth. That’s the distinction between absolute Geocentrism and relativistic geocentrism. Don’t quote me on that, though; what’s important here is the concept of absolute vs. relative motion, and an absolute center vs. a multitude of observer-dependent centers.

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. MomoTheBellyDancer, Part 1

My Comments from the YouTube video “TYCHO BRAHE Says No Spheres NoParallax No Planets - All Lies” by jeranism

Scott Reeves wrote (responding to MomoTheBellyDancer's comments to Last Trump):

“That is not an assumption [that the Earth is revolving around the sun]. The fact that we can observe stellar aberration is already plenty of evidence. Another piece of evidence is the fact that Newtonian physics perfectly describe the motion of planets, including earth.”

We can also observe and explain stellar aberration from a geocentric frame. Stellar aberration doesn’t speak to whether Earth is revolving around the sun. 

As for Newtonian physics, choosing to make Newtonian calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun. It simply means that you've chosen to make Newtonian calculations using a coordinate system in which the Earth is revolving around the sun.

As for Newtonian physics perfectly describing said motion of the planets – they didn’t perfectly describe the precession of Mercury, did they? So thy DON’T “perfectly” describe the motion of the planets.

“No, because you have to introduce massive amounts of unknown variables to make the geocentric model work, which simply disappear then you go with the heliocentric model. Occam's razor compels us to go with the model with the least amount of assumptions.”

Occam’s razor is a philosophical preference for simplicity, not a physical law that governs the universe. The geocentric frame IS just as valid as any other frame, unless you want to deny Relativity. What you’re basically saying is that Occam’s razor compels us to conclude that all reference frames are not physically equivalent, in violation of Relativity.

Perhaps you might object that you were referring to the geocentric MODEL as being invalid, not the geocentric REFERENCE FRAME. But how can you acknowledge the geocentric reference frame yet deny the geocentric model that goes with it? If you’re going to allow someone to assume the role of an observer within the geocentric reference frame, then that observer MUST have a model that describes the universe from his geocentric viewpoint, and that model MUST be as valid as any other model. If that model is not fully developed by such an observer, it MUST be possible to fully develop it, or else Relativity is an invalid theory. And I'm assuming you are not an anti-relativist.

MomoTheBellyDancer wrote:

"Stellar aberration doesn’t speak to whether Earth is revolving around the sun."

Then explain how we could get stellar aberration that way.

"choosing to make Newtonian calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun."

Then present a model in which the Newtonian calculations are correct, but in which the earth does not orbit the sun. Make sure it is at least as comprehensive as the heliocentric model, with as few assumptions as possible.

"Occam’s razor is a philosophical preference for simplicity, not a physical law that governs the universe."

 Irrelevant. It states that we should choose the model that works fine with the least amount of assumptions. Really, why would we throw in a lot of assumptions when a simpler model explains the same facts just as well, if not better?

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. Nope, Part 1

Comments on YouTube video “TestingGeocentrism Part 2” by CoolHardLogic

Scott Reeves wrote (in a general comment directed at CoolHardLogic)::

Einstein and Stephen Hawking, and many other reputable scientists, say geocentrism works, but we're supposed to believe you that it doesn't?

Nope wrote:

No, you're supposed to believe the evidence gathered through observations, which clearly points out that geocentrism is bollocks. Also, I'm pretty sure none of those fellas actually believed for a second that geocentrism is an even remotely plausible explanation, but who knows? Even Newton said hillariously stupid shit back then so yeah.

Scott Reeves wrote:

Here is the ColdHardTruth that all you relativity supporters are going to have to accept if you want to be relativists: there is absolutely not a single shred of evidence you can put forward to disprove the geocentric reference frame. The geocentric reference frame is a perfectly valid reference frame in relativity.

The only thing you can do is try to talk me and other Geocentrists out of advocating an absolute Geocentric reference frame. How do you do this? You point out that relativity forbids an absolute reference frame, and then try to convince us that relativity has a hundred years of empirical evidence behind it. You tell us that it is the most well-tested theory in the history of science, and only a fool would reject an argument with that magnitude of empirical weight behind it. And if those tactics don’t work, you begin to pile on the mockery and the public humiliation in attempt to silence us.

That is ALL you can do. You all keep trying to prove that the Earth is in motion and the geocentric reference frame is invalid. News flash: that is most definitely not going to happen. If you think it will, you do not understand relativity. Trying to disprove the geocentric reference frame by saying that the Earth is definitely in motion is just the opposite of what I do by advocating the absolute Geocentric frame: you are trying to prove a frame of absolute motion. So by denying geocentrism in any form you’re also working hard to try to disprove relativity.

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. EmperorZelos, Part 1

Comments on YouTube video “Heliocentric Vs ConcaveGeocentric Model Of Our Universe” by Godrules

Scott Reeves wrote in response to an earlier comment by Mike Vizioz:

"There is absolutely no reason to believe in something like that unless you are out to prove the validity of the bible."

How about a desire to be scientifically accurate? The choice is either absolute Geocentrism or relativity. Since relativity requires the existence of an unscientific concept, namely the unobservable universe, to be valid, relativity is not a scientific theory, yet is presented as scientific fact. Therefore the choice is either absolute Geocentrism or pseudoscience.

From a religious and Biblical perspective (yes, I am a Christian) I couldn't care less whether we're at the center of the universe or not. Makes no difference to my belief in God. I only want to follow the scientifically sound view of the universe, and protest all you want, that view is Geocentrism.

Scott Reeves wrote in response to an earlier comment by EmperorZelos:

Prove it. Have you gone to other points in the universe to check your assertion?

EmperorZelos wrote:

EVERY point of the universe will be seen as the center you idiot and big bang/ relativity does nto depend upon a larger universe. Go back to highschool

Scott Reeves wrote:

Prove that every point in the universe will be seen as the center. Get in your little spaceship and fly a few thousand light years away from Earth and start proving the Copernican principle. 

And Big Bang/relativity DOES depend upon a larger universe. If we're at the center of the observable universe, which science acknowledges that we are, then in order for us not to be motionless at the center of an absolute Geocentric universe, there MUST be a larger universe beyond the observable universe. YOU go back to high school.

Emperor Zelos wrote:

"Prove that every point in the universe will be seen as the center. Get in your little spaceship and fly a few thousand light years away from Earth and start proving the Copernican principle."

It's demonstrable by the laws of physics, they are frame independed which means all points are equal.

"And Big Bang/relativity DOES depend upon a larger universe"

It doesn't, it might be a conclusion but it's not a dependence.

"If we're at the center of the observable universe, which science acknowledges that we are"

It doesn't, cite a single peer reviewed article from a reputable journal that says we are the center.

"then in order for us not to be motionless at the center of an absolute Geocentric universe, there MUST be a larger universe beyond the observable universe. YOU go back to high school."

That's a non-sequitor.

The ceocentric model is dead and easily done so by simple newtonian physics because the earth moves around the sun, which moves around the center of the galaxy. We've measured these speeds and much else.

Geocentrism: The Debates Introduction

I'm going to start posting discussions I have had over the past month in the comments sections of various Youtube videos. Of course they're all on the subject of geocentrism and relativity. The illustrious CoolHardLogic even puts in a lengthy appearance.

In a lot of the cases, the other debate participant eventually dropped out, whether it was due to my craziness, their lack of time, or their growing tired of carrying the discussion onward. Or maybe they will eventually get around to responding to dangling response to their previous comments, and just haven't yet. For whatever reason, a lot of the discussions are left hanging, so I'm calling each one "part 1," even though there may never be a subsequent part.

I in no way mean to imply anything at all about the other participant's leaving the discussion; I know life gets in the way, or the debate eventually becomes pointless, or they think things have gotten a little too crazy, or they're in over their heads, or they think I don't know what I'm talking about. Whatever reason, nothing against the other commentor, and their leaving the debate shouldn't be construed as an admission of defeat on their part (although predictably and, being human, I do of course consider myself the hands-down winner of every exchange). I appreciate each participant having taken the time to respond to what they did. It has helped to me hone my own arguments.

It should also be noted that I have absolutely no idea who any of my opponents are in "real life." I don't know their educational background - nothing. So I didn't choose to respond to a comment they made because I researched them and found them to be knowledgeable; I merely wanted to respond to something they had said to some other commentor, and so our discussion began.

In each case, I'm going to identify myself and my opponent using "Scott Reeves wrote:" and "[insert name] wrote:" with each participant's section having the words of the opposing participant quoted in bold. 

Also, the presence of my comments in a particular video's comments section shouldn't be construed as either agreement or disagreement with the content of that video. Also, any spelling or grammatical errors have been left in and are the "fault" of whoever made them, including myself.

Also, a lot of these debates are quite long, so be sure to click the "read more" link at the bottom to read the whole thing.

Any copyrighted material is used under Fair Use.

What does relativity's geocentric model look like?

I was asked a question on a YouTube forum about what the absolute Geocentric model of the universe looks like. I decided to turn the question around. Everyone seems quick and eager (CoolHardLogic, anyone?) to claim victory in debunking the geocentric reference frame. But hold on a second - relativity contains a geocentric reference frame. So if all the geocentric models put forth by absolute geocentrists can be debunked, then what exactly do the relativists think their own geocentric model is? Since they've got a geocentric reference frame, they MUST have their own geocentric model of the universe. So what does it look like? I explain EXACTLY what it looks like in the following two videos. And (spoilers ahead)surprise, surprise, it looks exactly like the most current geocentric models that the relativists have allegedly debunked. Brings to mind an image of Barney Fife shooting himself in the foot as he attempts to draw his pistol.

These are The Undeniable Facts:

1)   A relativist can only say that Earth is in relative motion. If you say something, such as the Earth, is definitely in motion, then you are in violation of relativity.
2)   We, the observers on Earth, are at the center of our own observable universe. This is what the empirical evidence says. Both relativists and absolute Geocentrists acknowledge this.
3)   Absolute Geocentrists say that our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe is all that there is to the universe. There is nothing beyond our observable universe.
4)   If our own observable universe is the entire universe, and we are at the center of it, the Earth can be empirically shown (interferometer experiments) to be at absolute rest. Therefore if our own observable universe is all that there is, Earth is immobile at the center of the universe.
5)   According to standard Big Bang theory, anything beyond our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe will be forever unobservable to us due to the expansion of space.
6)   Things that are unobservable do not exist as far as science is concerned. Therefore anything beyond our observable universe does not exist as far as science is concerned. How could it, since the ability to observe something is a requirement of the scientific method?
7)   If 4) is correct then relativity is false, because Earth is a preferred, special reference frame, defining an absolute rest frame.
8)   The only way 4) can be false is if there is a larger universe beyond our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe.
9)   Therefore, both relativity and the Copernican principle require the existence of a universe beyond our observable universe, i.e. both require something that is beyond the scope of the scientific method and rational scientific inquiry.
10)  Mainstream science claims that there is a larger universe beyond our observable universe. They MUST claim this, because both relativity and the Copernican principle require it (see 9)) Google “the observable universe vs. the entire universe.”
11)  Relativity is presented to the public as scientific fact.
12)  Therefore, relativity is pseudo-science.
13)  The only options available to us are absolute Geocentrism or relativistic geocentrism.
14)  Relativity is a pseudo-science, therefore the only option available to strict adherents to science is absolute Geocentrism.

Earth is at absolute rest at the center of the universe as far as science is concerned. Relativists are the kooks, not the Geocentrists. Case closed, class dismissed.

Stephen Hawking, relativists and anti-geocentrists get taken to school

A little graphic I made today. If you right-click on the image and select "save image as," you can download this to your computer for easier zooming. The kid is me, of course, forty-some years ago.

Video Transcription: Part 1 of Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

This is the first part of the transcription of my video Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw. It's a LONG video, and hence is going to be a long transcription, so I'm posting it in parts as I work on it. This first part covers about the first 1/3 of the video. 

Video on Youtube: https://youtu.be/U7oP1OfJ4_I

Video on Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/DeathToEinsteinTheCenterOfTheObservableUniverseFlaw

Again, this is unedited. Also, there's a lot going on in the video that doesn't translate to text, so some of the transcription might not make sense without the video, but I'm doing it anyway.

Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

I did a Google here on “the observable universe.” The first result is Wikipedia: “The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time.”

How big is the observable universe? 46.5 billion light years. How far is the edge? Something wrong with these figures here.

Anyway, there’s the observable universe. How big is the universe? The diameter of the observable universe is a sphere around 92 billion light years. Has a radius of 46 billion light years.

The observable universe is basically everything we can see. Let me pull up Wikipedia here just to have something to read.

 “The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time because light and other signals from these objects have had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of expansion.”

So look, this diagram here is a bunch of stars enclosed in a sphere.

Video Transcription: Death to Einstein! The Pseudoscience Flaw

This is a transcription of my video Death to Einstein! The Pseudoscience Flaw
Also on Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/DeathToEinsteinThePseudoscienceFlaw

According to Wikipedia, “scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. Further, the overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions…The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad.”

As a sidenote, I’ve found that if you even refer to Wikipedia or use any of their diagrams, which are exact duplicates of diagrams that are used elsewhere in what are taken to be more “reputable” sources -- the moment you talk or write about a scientific topic and then refer to Wikipedia in the same breath, the attitude is, “Nothing you say can possibly be correct, because you’re referring to Wikipedia. You’ve gotten your education on relativity from Wikipedia. Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It’s not a valid source of information, so the very fact that you’re referring to it calls into question everything you say. Your knowledge is suspect.”

My response to that attitude is, “Whatever.” Wikipedia is a good source. I know enough to know whether what I’m reading is actually valid or not. I know when I’m being BS’d on Wikipedia. And I learned relativity long before Wikipedia was even the barest seed of an idea in the minds of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. So if you disregard what I say or write because I happen to refer to Wikipedia -- not my problem. Wikipedia is fine, in this case.

Returning to the Wikipedia quote regarding scientific theories:

Based on the above, relativity (both the special and the general theories) makes the broad hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, or alternately, that there are no privileged reference frames. This is the basic, core hypothesis upon which all other facets of relativity are based.

Is this a testable, falsifiable hypothesis? Yes, it is.

New YouTube videos - Relativity's Pseudoscience Flaw, and the End of Greatness

I've posted two new YouTube videos. One explains why relativity is pseudoscience. The other is on Geocentrism, the so-called End of Greatness that lies 300 million light years from Earth, and the astronomical observations of an extinct alien civilization billions of light years from Earth.

 

 

New video: The Planck Length Problem of Special Relativity

I've put up a new Death to Einstein! video on YouTube, this one about the Planck length problem of special relativity.

The Angled Emitter Problem of Special Relativity

I recently added a couple of videos to YouTube that I think demonstrate yet another fatal flaw in special relativity.

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!

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.

Death to General Relativity!

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.