(4) Time and Place
Now we move on to the standard place and time relativity of the STR, where, for example, the theory could, supposedly, be understood to send men back into the future, or is it forward into the past, theoretically of course:
‘Its [the STR] philosophical implications arise from its impact on our understanding of the nature of space and time. To an astronomer on earth, an event in his observatory may appear to be simultaneous with an event, observed through his telescope, on Jupiter. However, two consequences of special relativity are that the information cannot travel faster than the speed of light and the velocity of light is the same for all frames of reference. Therefore the event in the observatory must have occurred 35 minutes after the event on Jupiter (the time taken for light to travel the 630 million km from Jupiter). But to an observer on Jupiter, the event on Jupiter would have appeared to have occurred 35 minutes before the event on earth. The implications for all this for time order and causality has exercised both physicists and philosophers for the last 70 years.’ --- Encyclopaedia of Science.
In that case let us give our two-pence worth. First we must not confuse an image with an event; the two are not the same. In reality, as with two people on the phone far enough apart to cause a time-delay from one to the other; both exist in the same time-reality. Put a man on Jupiter and get him to set off an atomic bomb, all that results is that - if the speed of light through a vacuum is accurate – it takes 35 minutes for that light image, not light event, to reach the man on the earth. As with the two on the phone, the men on Earth and Jupiter share the same time-reality.
While we are at it there is another space-time invention that needs correcting in a geocentric framework. Using the unverified stellar parallax trigonometry to declare the distance of near stars up to 500 light-years away, they then measured far-stars by means of brightness according to their colour spectrum. It seems they have worked out a way to guess at the distances of far stars that is probably no more scientifically accurate as their assumed stellar-parallax distances. Anyway, they have, they say, brightness to put some stars at 5 billion light-years away. From this, they further say, that star is 5 billion years old. On this they base the age of the universe at 5 billion years old.
Well now, two can speculate where certainty cannot be attained by true science. According to Genesis, man was created on an earth where starlight was already visible. Given everything was created together, the age of the stars, the earth and mankind is the same. Now science has determined the speed of light is not infinite, and like the man on earth and Jupiter, there is a time delay from an event to receiving an image of that event. Now there are supernovae, star explosions that we see on earth. Given creation took place no more than 6-10,000 years ago, none of those stars exploded more than 6-10,000 years ago, so no star in the heavens is more than 6-10,000 light-years distance. Now go try to prove us wrong.
(5) Time Dilation Factor
The next intellectual excrement of the special theory of relativity is the so-called time dilation theory. As the speed increases, time slows down. ‘This can be illustrated by a tale of twins [or two clocks]. One stays on earth, while the other hurtles into space at extraordinary speed: the stay at home twin gets older faster.’ Of all the falsifications of Einstein’s theories none make a better story than the uncovering of this absurdity. It began in 1972 with the publication of Professor Herbert Dingle’s new book ‘Science at the Crossroads.’ Now the thing is that this same professor was for many years one of Einstein’s most devout pupils. On page 105 of his Crossroads he writes: ‘To the best of my knowledge there is no one living who can give objective evidence that he is more competent in the subject than I am.’ Way back in 1922, three years after Einstein’s relativity theories, Dingle published the first book on the subject called Relativity for All. For fifty years he is associated with all the big-name relativist physicists of the era such as Einstein himself, Eddington, Tolman, Whittaker, Born, Shroedinger and Bridgman. Dingle’s ‘The Special Theory of Relativity’ became the standard textbook on the subject, and could be found in use in most universities of America and Europe. Indeed, it was he that provided one of the two articles on relativity in Encyclopaedia Britannica. But Dingle then saw his error.
‘Far from being too profound for the ordinary reader to be expected to understand it, the point at issue is of the most extreme simplicity.’
The gist of Dingle’s long if simple explanation is that Einstein’s relativity theory also requires that at great speed each of two measuring rods must be shorter than each other: two masses must attain weights greater than each other: two clocks must work faster than each other: and two twins must age more slowly than each other. Yes, relativity requires us to accept that, in the case of the twins, for example, where one twin is blasted off into space at the speed of light and the other remains on earth; it makes no difference mathematically which twin ages the slower, for, with Einstein’s theory of light-speed, there is no difference between rest and motion. Thus for the theory to be viable, both twins must get younger (and older) than the other.
‘Unless this [anomaly] is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.’ ---H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, p.45.
Sir Arthur Eddington, who played an important part in promoting Einstein’s general theory of relativity, once wrote:
‘Beyond even the imagination of Dean Swift; Gulliver regarded the Lilliputians as a race of dwarfs; and the Lilliputians regarded Gulliver as a giant. That is natural. If the Lilliputians had appeared dwarfs to Gulliver, and Gulliver had appeared a dwarf to the Lilliputians – but no; that is too absurd for fiction, and is an idea only to be found in the sober pages of [earthmoving] science.’ ---A.S. Eddington: Space, Time and Gravitation, ch.1, quoted by Gwynne, op. cit., p.15
For thirteen years Dingle challenged the Relativists to rebut his falsification of Einstein’s relativity. Knowing they were on a beating to nothing, the fellows of the Royal Society; the scientific journals in England and America, and even the popular press with the sole exception of The Listener (1969), “ignored, evaded, suppressed and indeed treated in every possible way except that of answering it by the whole scientific world.” (H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, p15.) Dingle continues his story, recalling the words of the Rev. W.J. Platt, who, having read his story in The Listener sent the following to The Times, which, not surprisingly, they refused to publish:
‘Professor Dingle, who, is recognised as a leading authority on Einstein’s special relativity theory on which physicists acknowledge that they rely, has advanced what he claims to be a fatal criticism of that theory. On such a matter the layman is, of course, not qualified to speak. He is, however, entitled to an assurance that the scientific world remains true to its principle of answering or accepting informed criticism. This appears to be not only, as it has always been, a moral duty of scientists, but in these days, when the experiments perform are of such enormous potential danger, a necessity. According to the uncontradicted assertion in the Listener of October 30th last, however the President of the Royal Society failed to giver an assurance that scientific integrity is still preserved. If earlier statements in the correspondence are true, he could hardly, of course, do so.
May I give a few of these statements? (1) Some of the most eminent workers in modern physics have admitted privately that they either do not understand the theory or regard it as nonsensical: nevertheless, they continue to teach it to students and to use it in high energy experiments. (2) It is stated that the Royal Society has declared privately that Professor Dingle’s fallacy is ‘too elementary even to be instructive,’ but the Society has not stated what that fallacy is, and the journal Nature, which had previously published the criticism without eliciting a refutation of it, has refused to publish a letter from Professor Dingle, asking that the Royal Society shall state the fallacy.’ --- H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, p.91.
Enough of this, for obviously the Rev. Platt did not know how ‘science’ has been orchestrated since Isaac Newton’s time. At that lecture at Trinity College in Dublin in 1996, and we were there, engineer Kelly read a paper that, while speculative itself, did show the STR had been empirically falsified many times. Nevertheless, within the audience there were professors who were employed by that same university to teach this nonsense to students. Within minutes of Kelly’s unassailable thesis, these same Relativists were up on their feet telling all and sundry that Kelly ‘really didn’t fully comprehend’ the theory he had just falsified. We have no doubt the next day Kelly’s debunking synthesis was history and the STR was being taught to a new batch of physics students in that same world-renowned university in whose lecture hall the Special Theory was seen for what it really is, patent intellectual nonsense, mathematical magic.
The Clock Fraud
To be continued