Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death

“One of the most striking characteristics of Einstein is that even in those papers where he worked out the profoundest theoretical principles and theories, such as in the 1905 paper about the special theory of relativity, he did not finish without at least glancing around for possible verifications of their empirical consequences.”(Klaus Hentschel, ‘Einstein’s Attitude Towards Experiments, Testing Relativity Theory 1907-1927’, 1992).

For STR and much of ‘the science’ mathematics and their elegant explanations, backed by some qualitative proofs took precedence over physical reality. As the ancients, the scholastics and Pierre Duhem would have said, maths were employed to ‘save the phenomena’ with abstract calculations and metaphysics in lieu of physical proofs.

An overview of Special Theory of Relativity (STR)

An introduction to the underlying maths of STR

Key scientists and actors within the STR domain

James Webb Telescope observations which refute parts of STR and the Big Bang

Herbert Dingle’s unanswered clock paradox and the inherent contradiction within STR

The theory of relativity has been debated for over one hundred years. Contrary to what we are told there has been and there still are, plenty of scientists and analysts who remain unconvinced by the abstract mathematics of Einstein and his STR and the lack of physical proofs. It is a theory in crisis.

While febrile, STR does convey an important but hard to prove concept of time dilation. Namely that the clocks in space go much faster than on Earth, meaning that space time age is much longer than Earth age. From many perspectives this seems plausible and reasonable. This idea is very difficult to prove without performing interstellar experiments.

For the rest of STR There is plenty to critique about the ‘laws’ of STR, which are rarely mentioned within Scientism or ‘the science’. Previous posts have summarized STR, its maths and surfaced some issues. This continues with the critique and focuses on the key question of the ‘ether’.

STR is an attempt to correct Newtonian laws on gravity and ‘save’ the Maxwell-Lorentz equations on motions and the speed of light. Einstein wanted a ‘unified’ theory where Newton’s law of inertia was married to the equations of Maxwell-Lorentz. To do this he needed to remove the ‘ether’ (more below) and update the theories for his idea of ‘relativity’, or the difference in the phenomena of speed and motion between objects and their clocks, based on an observer either static, or in motion with the objects in question (Resnick, 1972).

As with Maxwell’s obstruse and endless pages of symbology and maths, STR is at its core a mathematical edifice which is entirely theoretical, not physical. Contrary to ‘popular science’ little physical proofs exist for the Maxwell-Lorentz theorems or for Einstein’s STR theory which is largely a modification of Lorentz’s theorems with the ether removed.

Having said that, Lorentz’s theory is far more empirical than Einsteins. It should also be stated that Einstein’s famous formulation of E=Mc2 in which energy and matter is interchangeable seems to be correct, but is largely borrowed from Maxwell and others. There does exist many critics of this equation who maintain it is false. In any event this famous ‘law’ does not belong only to Einstein, nor to STR. People who use this as proof of STR do not understand that independently and long in advance of Einstein and STR, energy and mass equalisation proofs were forwarded and developed. E=Mc2 does not prove STR whatsoever.

We can list issues with STR as given by many scientists and researchers who have delved into the theory. Literally hundreds of scientists and researchers in the past century have heavily critiqued the validity of STR. But no one has heard about this. The issues include:

1. Mathematical abstraction, where maths replace physical proofs

2. Impossibility to prove or disprove the mathematical arcana given their long, complex and tautological nature

3. Maxwell’s equations were not understood by many and pace Pierre Duhem and others, might well be wrong

4. Lorentz’s equations are not understood by many and pace sundry critics, might well be wrong and further, Einstein accepted his maths which only work with an ether, yet rejected the ether

5. Few if any observations confirm Lorentz’s theories though the qualitative and quantitative proofs for this theory heavily outweigh that of Einstein’s

6. Michelson-Morley’s experiments which ‘disproved the ether’ are likely wrong, and some maintain they were a fraud

7. The ether used by both Maxwell and Lorentz could be valid based on experiments from the past 100 years (more below)

8. If the ether in any form, with any density is valid, STR by default is invalid

9. Einstein’s STR suffers from the clock paradox and does not have empirical physical proofs to support the maths

10. The observed time-dilation effect in atomic clocks could be caused by a physical effect of the ether-wind on electron’s orbits inside the clocks (more below)

11. Space-Time dimension (4

^{th}dimension) is unproven and unlikely given that time is outside of space and is a metaphysical construct12. The production of multiple time concepts as evidenced by Harald Nordenson (1922-1969) would invalidate STR

13. The speed of light might well vary within space, negating much of STR which assumes is a constant rate in a vacuum applied to the universe

14. Shadow gravity is a better explanation of how gravity would function than Newtonian gravity, which is a core component of STR (more below)

15. The Big Bang theology is incorrect, much of it premised on STR with ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ simply replacing Einstein’s fudge namely his ‘constant’ which he invoked to stabilise the universe and resolve issues with Newtonian gravity

Any of the above would disprove STR (Smarandache 2013). Each could fill and has filled, a small book. An example is that of the ‘ether’ which is simply accepted by those in cosmology and physics to not exist. But like much of ‘the science’ this is incorrect, resting on unproven assumptions and very outdated experiments and ideas. The ether is a classic case of where a few people make decisions based on models and contentious experimetation and the rest of the industry simply accepts this truncated analysis as a law and builds yet more mathematical models and explanations upon this flawed foundation. More here

This is a really good 24-minute video on issues with Space-Time and STR, by Roger Penrose. The Scientism of Einstein, as will be elaborated in 2 coming posts and which is analysed here, here and here, is coming to an end. It might take 50 more years, but the reign is soon over. There is precious little proof that Banging is relevant.

This video is a good overview of what is wrong when one analyses ‘space-time’ a key insight not from Einstein but from his maths teacher Minkowski, which Einstein incorporated into his STR. This video however * misses the obvious fact that Time might well exist outside of space, separate and not integrated into a 4^{th} dimension as proposed by Einstein*. This is far more likely, than a ‘dimensional’ cube of interwoven space and time,

Physics is the physical reality and proofs using objects in the real world. Mathematical theories are not proof.

There are no valid reasons or observations to entangle space-time, unless you are trying to prove the mathematics of the STR.

· Contrary to STR and Banging theology, stellar galaxies should be far less than 1 billion years old but this is not what they have found

· Exploding Supernovae are young

· Galaxies – larger than ours – are newly created

· Super galaxies have formed in short periods of time

· According to STR and Banging, the Universe should collapse on itself and either reform or cease to exist

· Magical dark matter and dark energy are invoked to prevent a collapse, neither has been found or can even be described

· Time as an idea is problematic given that it is a human construct

· Time is quite likely, not a linear product or chronometry

· There may be multiple cycles and multiple universes, no one knows, but ineluctably according to the BB, there was a beginning and an end to the universe

· Einstein’s ‘constant’ which is the same as dark matter, dark energy, preserves the universe’s ‘steady state’ that exists for eternity, and prevents a cosmic implosion due to gravity (which by itself is a weak force)

· If the universe is flat, which is what the cosmological proofs state, than STR and its space-time theory based on maths and only maths, is irrelevant

· It is becoming more obvious that space time is not Einstein’s smooth fabric

· Contrary to Newton’s idea of gravity as a pool, Einstein viewed gravity as part of space-time curving the universe

· The STR and Banging maintain that space and time are interconnected as an unprovable 4

^{th}dimension· This means that everything coexists in space and time including the future and past

· There is no proof of this, and it contravenes physical reality

· Others believe that space-time is an artifact of the quantum world

· Quantum theory is where particles exist in multiple places simultaneously (Schrodinger’s cat where the cat is both alive and dead) but this cannot be reconciled with space-time

· Long standing problem in physics is of locality and entanglement, if we have 2 particles far apart, changing one will affect the other, violating the STR

· This means that different observers will have different ideas of locality – for example you can feel closer to someone you love who is far away, than your neighbour that you don’t care about

· STR, GTR maintain that a gravity field cannot be in 2 places or states simultaneously

· Where does the gravitational field reside? No one knows.

· Any theories attempting to merge STR with quantum theory have failed

· String theory is trying to merge quantum and STR/GTR

· Vibrating stings make up molecules and particles

· For this to work the strings must vibrate across 7 dimensions, only 4 are now proposed with the 4

^{th}of space-time unproven and theoretical· This is an abstract maths-based idea with no physical proofs

· Loop quantum gravity is now proposed to replace string theory, in which space-time is a woven loop or network of complexity, contrary to STR

· These defects in STR can only be viewed in Planck time or a millionth of a millionth of a metre

· It is impossible to test LQG with particle accelerators, we would need an accelerator 1000-trillion times more powerful than those at CERN and the size of the milky way

· For now, it is an abstract maths based theory with no proofs

· Many believe that a quantum world is influenced by gravity, which is an entirely new approach to physics and cosmology.

· This pursuit should have the potential to impact real life, since any changes to space time theories would affect all theories in physics and cosmology including our own ideas of the age of space, and the Earth.

· In my opinion the ages of the cosmos and Earth are not the same, with space appearing to be much older than the Earth given the differential in clocks between a terrestrial clock and a space clock (this is probably a valid part of the STR).

Given that all of our devices function according to quantum theory, using this as a basis for a new approach is sensible. Hawking, the rather puerile salesman for Einstein, acknowledged before he died that quantum mechanics properly destroyed his idea about Black Holes. As reality displaces complex mathematics the end of much of STR is guaranteed.

Next posts: Dingle’s clock paradox, and the many issues of STR as given by hundreds of scientific experiments and observations.

The first post discussed the theory of STR and what the theory is trying to achieve. There are 2 postulates or Einstein’s ‘laws’, which the science says are infallible and proven.

The first postulate is that the laws of physics apply to all objects universally, as long as an ether or medium is not present. ‘Laws of physics’ refers to the Catholic Galileo’s work in the 17th century and his law of inertia, summarised as: "*Objects move with constant speed in a straight line when no external agent is acting on them*”.

The second rule or postulate is that the speed of light or its velocity is constant for all objects regardless of their motion. Again, this is similar to Galileo’s own experimental proofs.

Einstein’s ex-cathedra postulate pronouncements are now deemed infallible and eternal. These postulates surround and protect his STR theory. The postulate and rules by themselves may well be sensible. I don’t think they prove much of anything if we extend the postulates to the STR itself or the physical world. Postulate one is basically unprovable. Postulate 2 would not hold outside of a vacuum. STR itself, in toto, is largely premised of course, on mathematics and in particular endless pages of dense equations.

As Einstein supposedly remarked, not more than a dozen people on the planet would understand the theorem. Maybe that was the whole point. The layman with his curiosity and his weathered dirty hand on a shovel handle, may inquire as to what connection exists between the endless equations with their odd symbols, and the physical world. He is answered with more maths and sometimes ridicule.

This post carries on from the introductory post, looking specifically at the mathematical foundations of the theory.

By 1632 the Catholic Galileo had developed complicated equations which would be the basis of mechanical physics. These equations described the transformation between the coordinates of two inertial frames (objects on a grid). The equations are the basis of STR theory. In essence Galileo’s transformation model can be summarised as:

x

^{1 }= vt -> where x is a coordinate of an event in one inertial frame (called S usually, with S being an object eg a moving train); x^{1 }is the coordinates of the same event in another inertial frame (S') moving at a constant velocityy

^{1 }= y -> the same as x in the context of yz

^{1 }= z -> same as x, y, in the context of zt

^{1 }= t where t = inertial time

In this theorem the transformations in the y and z directions are identity transformations, which means that there is no change along those axes. The above is very similar to what is deployed in the STR.

Using the above maths Galileo describe the transformations between frames of reference at speeds much less than the speed of light. It is not relativistic. The theory cannot describe the relationship between space and time at relativistic speeds. The Lorentz transformation theory by contrast, can articulate space and time at all relativistic speeds, including at the speed of light.

The Galilean transformation was superseded by the Dutchman Hendrik Lorentz’s equations or the ‘Lorentz transformations’, published in 1895. It is undeniable that much of STR is derived from Lorentz though Einstein did not credit the Dutchman. It is well-documented that Albert Einstein corresponded with Lorentz, and he had studied Lorentz's work. The Lorentz transformations describe the mathematical relationship between the coordinates of events in different inertial frames and are the core of Einstein's theory of special relativity.

In their correspondence, Lorentz and Einstein discussed various aspects of electromagnetism, and Einstein was familiar with Lorentz's efforts to reconcile the phenomena of electromagnetism with the principles of classical Galilean mechanics. Einstein took Lorentz’s work and extended it, adding the 2 postulates analysed in the first post, and E=mc2 or the conversion of energy and mass. This would be proven in nuclear reactions. E is the energy of the object, m its mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

In reading both theorems I am not convinced that Einsteins’ theory is that much different. Einstein uses Lorentz whole hog and adds E=mc2, a formulae developed by others though he stated he arrived at it independently. I don’t find this convincing. For the record, E=mc2 is initially an output of electro-magnetic theory, with Maxwell and others (for example, the British scientist J.J. Thomson, in 1881, and the Italian Olinto De Pretto, in 1903), being its true inventors, not Einstein. Einstein dispensed with the ‘ether’ (*luminiferous particles which interact with light and electro-magnetism, which is indeed different than the idea of ‘dark matter’ which does not interact with light*). He reformed the velocity of light to be a constant in a vacuum as well as proposing the exchange of energy with mass. Lorentz’s ideas are the real foundation of STR.

Lorentz’s calculations run to many pages. In summary and to simplify some core aspects of the theory found in textbooks and on sites would be the following.

We can see the similarity with, and the use of Galileo’s transformation equations.

Lorentz’s theorem can be summarised in the following way:

1. -t = time and x = space coordinates for one reference object, called S, moving at a certain velocity or v, relative to another reference object (or frame) called S^{1}

2. v = the relative velocity between two inertial frames of reference or 2 objects within the same or different coordinates

3. -For both objects S and S^{1}, coordinates or location maps covering both objects, are calculated using the variables, y, z an y^{1}, z^{1} for both objects along the y and z axes

4. -The z axis is a 3^{rd} dimension axis to imitate space is added to the above 2-dimensional diagram (the z axis was added in 1908, by Einstein’s math professor Hermann Minkowski)

5. -c is the speed of light (for Einstein, this meant only a vacuum)

6. The symbol γ is gamma or the Lorentz factor given below

The full equations and explanations can be found in any physics textbook online. Many sites possess calculators where you can stroll through the theorem against a thought or paper experiment.

The maths is difficult to wade through.

A key difference between the 2 theorems is that Lorentz, like Maxwell and others, believed in an ether, or a medium in space which could interact with and propagate light, whereas Einstein did not. However, both theories are so similar that they are conflated with each other, with STR categorised as the ‘Lorentz-Einstein model’. Lorentz’s theory in and of itself is not relativistic, but Einstein’s is. However, proofs offered for STR include the relativistic outputs of Lorentz’s equations. This is both tautological and usually tangential. You cannot use part of a theorem to prove the theory.

The maths is abstract but can be applied to moving objects. In his 1905 paper, Einstein used the analogy of a train and an observer on a train platform. Assume we have an observer on a train platform, watching a train moving past the station at 60 mph. Let’s put two objects emitting light, one at the beginning of the train, and one at the end of the train. Calculations can be made to show the separation in time between when the lights flashed as seen by either the platform observer, or a second observer seated in the train in the middle of the car.

Logically the person in the train would never see the flashing lights but that reality is dismissed in favour of trying to prove the relativistic nature of objects in motion and their light signals as seen by the 2 observers, one static on a platform, the other in a train moving at 60 mph away from the platform. What does it mean?

1. The Lorentz *transformation* purportedly shows that *time and space are not absolute* and can be different for observers in relative motion.

*2. *The Lorentz *factor* *accounts for the relativistic effects* of *time dilation and length contraction *with the length (or mass) of an object becoming smaller as it moves away from an observer*. *

Lorentz offers the ‘transformation’ equations to show relativity in space and time. He also uses his ‘factor’ to ‘prove’ relativity between objects in time dilation (the twin’s paradox) and length contraction.

*Based on the above ideas, perhaps the key point in special relativity is that the relationships between space and time coordinates are intertwined*. Observers moving relative to each other at a constant velocity will experience different perceptions of time and space.

As already stated a major addition to Lorentz’s theorem by Einstein, is the formulation of Energy = mass x the speed of light in a vacuum square (E=mc2). This theory states that mass and energy are interchangeable. Nuclear reactions offer proof of this. Fair enough. For example, a small amount of mass may be converted into a large amount of energy.

Within STR the mainstream narrative offers that this equation is a key element in describing *how* energy and mass are observed in different *inertial reference frames* moving relative to each other. I am not sure this is true. It can lead to theories about *time dilation* for example, or as already stated, *length contraction* where an object that is moving away relative to an observer will appear contracted in the direction of motion (which may be incorrect, more later).

Much of this is only theory and still open to dispute. Though* *E=mc², is a fundamental expression in the theory of relativity, it is not and cannot be used as a direct proof of time dilation or the concept of different clocks running at different speeds. This would be tautological. At best it helps describe such phenomena if they exist.

The main areas of importance of STR, cited within the mainstream science literature include:

1. Time-dilation (not as clear cut as presented, scanty proofs, but can be observed),

2. Red-shift calculations (absolutely nothing to do with STR and eviscerated here),

3. GPS systems (if STR did not exist these would still work),

4. Bending of light (this seems correct).

Two out of four. The above are not the vital points about STR. There are two implications of STR in my opinion. More here