# Thread: Simple practical test of logical self-consistency in Special Relativity

1. Here's the most simple and basic scenario involving relative velocities of frames in motion and the rates of time flow observed in those frames. Here we go

Object A (red ball) and B (blue ball) are incoming directly towards each other (head-on) with a total relative speed equal to v=0,5c.

Question: which object experiences a faster rate of timeflow?

Bonus mission: out of nowhere there's also a 3rd ball C that moves at relative velocity v/2 in relation to ball B - is the rate of timeflow higher for B or for C? What if C would be moving in opposite direction (towards B)?

And what if we remove the frame of A and treat frame of C as statiionary one (B iincoming towards stationary C at ~0,25c). What if one and the same object has different velocities in different frames - it happens pretty often in real life... Which of the measured relative velocities defines the time flow rate for that frame? But hey, this object is also completely stationary towards other objects moving at the same speed and in the same direction. Can you slow down someone's aging process by looking at his relative motion from different points of view? According to SR time flow depends on velocity of one's relative motion. RELATIVE - like in RELATION TO - not definitive, specific, intrinnsic or characteristic to thje moving object... Good luck with solving something without actual solution as value of velocity is relative while time flow rate is not (it"s specific for each observer). The only definitive velocities we know of are: c of light and 0 of inertia in frames at rest...

I don't care if this guy's name is Einstein - the idea of time slowing down with increasing velocity is a parody of theoretical physics - it's literally anti-logic - let's slow our aging process by standing right next to a racing track during Formula 1 race. Everything is moving in relation to everything else except your stationary self. Einstein did a pretty nasty prank - even 100 years later physicists treat his anti-logical claims as the Holy Word of theoretical science and Undeniable Truth - better for us not to think about his ideas, as his genius is beyond siple human comprehension...

In second post I will show you that I'm actually not alone in my critique. It took some time, but apparently some theoretical physicists did at last started to notice, that we all are taking part in a nasty prank of Einstein - and some of them doesn't seem to be happy about that...

2. I'm not sure if that quote is real or not - but in this case he sounds to be actuallyquite honest

https://lefteris-kaliambos.fandom.co...IAL_RELATIVITY
https://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/speci...y-invalid1.htm
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...lativity_wrong
Indisputable Proof that Special Relativity is Invalid
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3650796
Special Relativity is Wrong
https://www.bolymedia.com/index/newsinfo/id/50
https://vixra.org/abs/1703.0047

And it's just a small foretaste.of what still is yet to come. There's no greater pranker in the history of modern physics, than Alobert Einstein - he's literally THE greatest pranker. LOL not the best times for theoretical physicists I guess - imagine being pranked for 100 years and to not notice it - I thought theoretical physicists suppose to be very smart

Well, the only honourable solution right now, is to end this masquerade ASAP - and then admit that the entire world was completely fooled by s true genius of scientific prank. Of course the profession of a theoretical physicist will be the main pbject of jokes for another century or so.

It might be also a good idea to start thinking already about some concept of time other than the linear 'time arrow' used in Einstein's fiction-based and imagination-driven model of 4D space-time. Here's something to begin from:

Not only this completely invalidates the abomination known as SR (being instant makes you faster than light) but it also proves quite clearly that the probabilistic model of space-time utilised in quantum physics, can be in fact applied as well to solid and "touchable" macroscale objects.

In shortcut, let's stop treating "Back to the Future" as something what has anything to do with actual science (it's a nice movie though) and focus on the "revolutional" idea of timeline where all observed events are just more or less probable (possible) until they will or won't happen and won't be directly observed

How deoes it work? Well if someone would ask me, if I'll find some free time around 7PM next friday, I would answer with: "possibly, but I can\t ptomise. Better call me aqround 5PM that day, so I will know more about my planned schedule"

A supporter of SR wpuld probably answer with something like "I did already find that free time next friday many times before - or maybe I was in fact unable to find any free time to spare in next couple days - but whatever is actually happening right now during next friday evening, just as we spoke back thren and as we will keep speaking every time when all of this happerns - it actually completely doesn't matter to no one, since it already happened, just as is happening right now and it will continue to happen in the same way from the beginning of time up until the very end of it's arrow

But even more important than the "updated" deefinition of time itself, is to quickly find a mathematically consistent theory capable to explain the apparent crazyness of constant c in relative motion, in a way that will actually make some practical sense, beyond a piece of paper or some abstract thought-experiments that simply can't be observed in real life by any known means...

Lucky for theoretical physicists, I never cared about the supposed authority of Einstein and I was able to see through the prank called SR a bit earlier than others - around 3 years ago, in the time when denying Einstein's genius was still punished by a complete social alienation and an endless barrage of scienctific terrorism conducted by his worshippers...

Lucky for all, I'm also a kind of a guy, who won't miss any given cjance to find completely untested solutions that are alternative to the currently approved scientific doctrine - and this is probably why in a world, where claims about Galilean Relativity being completely unable to handle the constancy of c in relative motion, are treated by theoretical physicists as a undeniable truth and/or deeper wisdom, I'm probably the only guy on this planet (at least as for today) who tried doing something supposedly impossible

Who could guess that imoissible things might sometimes actually happen. It turns out that all you need, is to measure c using 'stationary' coordinates in every avaliabgle frame - and now it seems to work MUCH better than logically retarded SR - in GR we at least end up with a timeline that makes sense in all movig fraes. I'd say that all people I know can agree with me as for the thngs that keep happenig all around in a distinctive logical order - some call this "history". Obviously events are taking place in the same order for drivers moving in opposing directions

Yes, I know that according to SR DIRECTION of relative motion dictates the chronological order of distant (unrelated) events. I'll go left and you go right and if we ever meet eachother again order of historical events will be different for both of us.

Forget for once the name Albert Einstein and look at all of this just a bit rationally. I'm not a theoretical physicist but I'm pretty sure that order of observed events is the same for all people I know - even if we all keep moving in many different directions throughout the day. Relativistic magic...

So below you have a step-by-step instruction how to apply constancy of c in frames slower than c, using only the basic laws and rules of the classiic Galilean relativity Apparently this didn't suppose to work, but surprisingly it turned out that it clearly does. Everythig is based on the most basic math of classic velocity addition - you just can't make a mistake when the entire scenario calculates everything pretty much by itself - i just need to set the velocities of objects and then I can simply switch between different cameras attached to moving objects (stationary in the respective inertial frames of those objects)

This is just the introduction. I've discovered a completely unexplored realm full of wild fields of untamed science in the simple mechanism simple relative motion - and it's whole just for me and no ome else And all just because I decided to personally fact-check the scriptures of mainstream doctrine. It will only get better from now on - this is basic science and I'm already bringing DOOM to a supposed greateest achievement of theoretical sciencfe. Well sorry, but it's your own foult - if you'd apply basic logic instead of authority in the modern science, Einstein's prank would be revealed before he managed to kick the bucket and leave theoretical physics in a quite deep s***hole for over a century. I know it souds pretty harsh, but if you're s professional scientists, then better prepare for the whole world being much more harsh than some completely unkmown guy on the internet

3. Ok, together with the previous movie, those two below should give the general understanding of the basic principles of constant c in galilean relativity - yes, it's still nothing else than simple math of standard velocity addition, but things might now gradually become a bit more complicated.

If you got so far, then: Congratulations! You just finished Level 1.

Level 2 will begin with a scenarioo where the light iemitted by one object is being refflected back by an incoming second object (mirror) and gets back to it's own source

On the diagram below you can see the general issue with such scenario - since relative constant motion has to be symmetrical, pulses of light emitted simultaneusly by both objects at t=0 suppose to remain in this simultaneity during all following events - and finally when those objects meet each other at t=6 both should agree as for the simultaneity of those events

Einstein's solution: what simultaneity? There's no such thing. isimultaneity is just a mere illusion as events only appear to happen in a specific order. Besides that, time is flowing faster for the object that remains stationary than for the object that is moving - this is why it;s abgsolutely impossible for the objects moving in relation to each other to reach anykind of synchronisation in simultaneity of events. It just can't happen even in theory

My solution: Ekhm! So I've tried to see what will happen if I'll try boosting the llight arrows, respectively to the moving frame - and it woeked... Not only the constant c is fully maintained in every 2-directional propagation of light, but also the specific order of events and their simultaneity remain fully synchronised for both interacting objects since the simultaneous emission at t=0 and throughout the rest of timeline

At this point, it's almost like abusing someone who requires special casre, but let's now see, how to wipe the floor with Special Relativity, by making 4 objects to move in pairs - with the pair A1 and A2 being wxact copy of the second pair B1 and B2.

Shhh! Shhh! The special care unit appears to manifest some spontaneous spasms of intelectual activity. Look! it tries to create something that tries to resemble some form of primal logic if we look on at a proper angle. What a smart boy you are! Don't be so shy, you can show us your special drawings - we'll try not to laugh, Of courrse that you are very special to all of us

...Well I'm sure that next time will be the one, when you'll finaly produce something that might be at least in tiny bit related to any known form of basic logical sense. Don't cry... What matters is that you tried. Never give up your dreams - but maybe for the future, you can try being creative without getting out of the closet - at least during the day. Or maybe at least let us know couple minutes earlier that you want to show us some of the things which you keep spawning persistently within the deepest layers of your lair - and without having any unnrecessary hopes about facing anything else than yet another utter and complete failure every time you ever try.

We understand very well, that Einstein's relativity due being so special as it is can't never be fully anderstood by any person with a functioning brain - to find some logical sense you need to be at least just as special... I can only try to guess what it tries to exprerss with those spontaneous seizures of creative activity. In this particular case it appears to me that in the special wonderworld in which Einstein's ideas keep to exist, only a single pair of objects can be somewhat synchronised - and only wiith the second object in this pair. it is theoretically impossibl
for both pairs to experience the same timeline of observed events. Amd what if we make all 4 objects to emit 4simultnaous pulses of light at t=0 - that should synchronise theit timelines, right?

Well, Yeah - this might actually do the trick - that is, if it would be even possible to execute. SR demonstrates however clearly that there can be only one frame. where this quadruple emission will be observed as simultaneous - while in every other frame those emissions will happem in a different order - depending on the direction of their relative motion. Now, this is what it means to be truly special....

***
Anyway. on the diagrams below, you can see how easily achieve this theretical impossibility, by boosting the arrows of light if it's interacting with objects in a moving frame. Just try not staring at it directly or for too long as it might vaporize your neurons and cause your eyes to melt...

But of course without any proper explanation, those images might look to normal people, more like some fancy runes, than somehing that miight be created by a physicist. Of course I would be more than happy to explain here all of the details, but I'm still not even in half of the discussed subject - this is why I will I will come back to each individual fragment later (if somepme will ask about it for example), while for now proceed with another important mechanism that my model explains in a completely new way - the mechanism which I want to show you right now, is known as 'parallax'

In shortcut it's all mostly about light distortions that are observed if it interacts with objects that are moving between the source of light and some distant receiver of that light. I'll speak more about this subject later...

However what I would like to point out right now, is that according to those 2 diagrams, just by simply placing a moving object between a source of light and It's receiver, we've managed to reduce the time required for the light to pass the dietance of 4 space ubits by 1 whole time unit, compared to the same scenario but without the 3rd object moving between the source & receiver. Normally light should reach the receiver in 4 time units after the light emission (distance between source and sensor is here equal to 4 space units) - but with the addition of the moving object, light emitted at t=0 is reaching the sensor placed 4 space units away from the source at t=3 - so 1 time unit earlier than it should, considering the constant speed of light

 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Forum Rules