Dienstag, 16. April 2019

Disproof of Theory of Relativity

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity has influenced our idea of reality like no other. It has given relativism ("everything is relative") a quasi-scientific basis. But what is it really about this view that contradicts intuition and common sense?

The ToR claims that there is no absolute reference point in the universe that would have rest, i.e. that would have "zero" velocity (v=0).

This may apply to non-accelerated translations (exactly straight-line movements): A train passenger cannot check whether the train or the landscape is moving. At will, the train passenger can assume v=0 (i.e. non-movement) for the train (then the whole universe moves past him) or in "relativistic permutation" for the landscape v=0 (then the train moves through it and the surrounding universe). Since it is a non-accelerated movement, both observer positions with v=0 are an "intertial reference frame" (coordinate system that moves in a straight line at constant speed). 

But now comes the paradox, which is surprisingly easy to explain and extremely difficult to solve: If the same train would not move in a straight line and not accelerated, but would rotate around itself on a turntable, the occupant would still be able to accept the surroundings as resting (v=0), but would no longer optionally ("relativistically") think of the train as resting (v=0), while the universe rotates around it, because this would mean that the distant objects would have to move around the train at multiple speed of light. Exactly this would contradict a requirement of the ToR, namely that no object with mass can move faster than with speed of light! 

From this follows that in an infinite universe there are indeed reference points with v=0, namely all rotation centers! I.e. that for every slightly curved motion - as part of a rotational path - the attribute "relativistic motion" (i.e. the arbitrary assignment, respectively the interchangeability of v=0) is no longer valid! Since there are practically no "mathematically straight line translations" in the real world, the ToR does not apply to reality.

In the German Wikipedia article on general relativity, an attempt is made to hide this fundamental theoretical inconsistency by "relativizing relativity" or by abolishing the constancy of the speed of light: 
"For example, even an observer on a rotating swivel chair can take the view that he himself is at rest and that the cosmos rotates around him. This creates the paradox that the stars and the light emitted by them move computationally in the coordinate system of the rotating observer at the superluminal speed, which apparently contradicts the special theory of relativity". 

So far the problem is confirmed.

"The resolution of this paradox is that the general covariate description is local by definition. This means that the constancy of the speed of light only has to be close to the world line of the observer, which is fulfilled for the rotating observer as well as for any other observer. The equations written covariantly, thus in the sense of the general principle of relativity, give for the stars thus superluminally fast circular motions, but are nevertheless in agreement with the principles of the special theory of relativity ...".

Here as a matter of course a fundamental principle of ToR is abolished, namely the observer-independent (!) constancy of the speed of light.

"... This is also made clear by the fact that it is impossible for an observer to rest in the rotating coordinate system near a star and thus encounter the star at the speed of superlight. This observer is forced to have a different coordinate system than the rotating observer and measures the "correct" speed of light."

And now, as a matter of course, relativistic interchangeability is abolished: during a rotation one cannot anymore ("relativistically") assign an inertial reference frame to the rotating object. While an inertial reference frame for the object environment with v=0 is still permissible, v=0 for the resting object immediately forces a change of the coordinate system, namely from the inertial reference frame to the accelerated system. But thus a rotation is no longer a relativistically undecidable movement!

Einstein himself commits in his book "Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie" (1916) blatant elementary errors of thought when he writes on pp. 8 ff:

"§ 5 The principle of relativity (in the narrower sense)

Again, in order to achieve the best possible illustration, we take the example of the uniformly moving railway car as a starting point. We call its movement a uniform translation ("uniform", because of constant speed and direction, "translation", because the wagon changes its position relative to the embankment but does not rotate). A raven flies in a straight line and uniformly - from the railway embankment judged by the air. Then from the moving carriage the movement of the raven is judged as a movement of another speed and another direction; but it is also linear and uniform. In abstract terms, if a mass m moves linearly and uniformly with respect to a coordinate system K, it also moves linearly and uniformly with respect to a second coordinate system K' if the latter translates uniformly with respect to K. From this follows the explanation of the previous paragraph:

If K is a GALILElian coordinate system, then any other coordinate system K' is also a GALILElian, which is in a state of uniform translational motion with respect to K. In relation to K' the laws of GALILEI-NEWTONian mechanics apply as well as in relation to K. We go one step further in the generalization by pronouncing the proposition: If K' is a coordinate system which moves uniformly and rotation-free in relation to K, then the natural process in relation to K' follows exactly the same general laws as in relation to K. We call this statement "principle of relativity" (in the narrower sense).

[I] As long as one was convinced that all natural events could be represented with the help of classical mechanics, one could not doubt the validity of this principle of relativity. [...] After all, there are two general facts which from the outset speak very highly for the validity of the principle of relativity. Even if classical mechanics does not provide a sufficiently broad basis for the theoretical representation of all physical phenomena, it must nevertheless have a very significant truth content; for it provides with admirable sharpness the actual movements of the celestial bodies. Therefore, the principle of relativity in the field of mechanics must also apply with great precision. But that a principle of such great generality, which applies to one area of appearance with such exactness, is a priori unlikely in relation to another area of appearance. [...]

[II] Because of its orbital motion around the sun, however, our earth is comparable to a (railway) car travelling at a speed of about 30 km per second. It would therefore be to be expected in the case of the invalidity of the relativity principle that the momentary direction of the earth's motion would be incorporated into the laws of nature, i.e. that the behaviour of the physical systems would depend on their spatial orientation towards the earth. Because of the change of the direction of the velocity of the orbital motion of the earth in the course of the year, it cannot be at rest during the whole year relative to the hypothetical system K. The direction of the orbital motion of the earth is therefore not the same. However, with all due care one has never been able to observe such an anisotropy of the earthly physical space, i.e. a physical inequality of the different directions. This is a serious argument in favour of the principle of relativity".

To [I]: Even if "all natural events" could be represented by mechanics, this does not mean that the principle of relativity applies automatically in the field of classical mechanics! For classical mechanics consists not only, or to the very least part, of "uniform, linear movements"!

To [II]: The assumed orbital motion of the earth is no translation! The earth is not a uniformly moving system, but - due to its assumed orbit - an accelerated system! The principle of relativity is by definition not valid for it. The missing observation of inequality of directions can thus not be an argument.

Summary: Einstein claims on p. 8 ff of his book (Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, 1916) that the principle of relativity applies to all natural processes. But the PR only applies to translations (straight line, non-accelerated motions), and these do not occur in nature!

How can it be that trained physicists who boast of having "understood" the theory of relativity do not stumble across such inconsistencies?

What if...?

What would be the consequences of a refutation of the Theory of Relativity? Well, first and foremost, gravity would no longer be a consequence of "space curvature"! The famous Le Sage had elaborated a theory of gravitation by pressure force, which even explains the inverse square law effortlessly by optical-perspectivical geometry.

But as "attraction" is neither a physical concept (without a solid connection), the only remaining cause for gravity would be an active force, very similar (if not identical) to cosmic radiation.

Welcome back to Nikola Tesla's and Victor Schaubergers "ether force" (free energy)! And here might be the clue why nobody of the establishment is interested in debunking the Theory of Relativity - because it would lay the saw on the tree of energy monoply. In the end, world economy and population growth is driven by energy.

Independently of the logical disproof of the Theory of Relativity, it would fall instantaneously, if free energy exists, and any real UFO would be a direct prove.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen