On The Fundamental Tests of The Special Theory of Relativity
On The Fundamental Tests of The Special Theory of Relativity
On The Fundamental Tests of The Special Theory of Relativity
Relativity
Gocho V. Sharlanov1, 2
1 Independent Researcher 2 Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
Abstract. The article starts with the existing definition of the “scientific
method” as a logical and rational order of steps through which scientists
reach conclusions about the world around us. The answer to the
question “What is truth and evidence in science?” requires attention to
be paid to several important key markings indicated in this regard.
The purpose of this article is to reveal the essence of all the “tests of the
special theory of relativity” presenting the most common objectionable
techniques used in the “fundamental tests” of special relativity, which
have been considered within three major types. The first one is based
on “logical circular reference”, the second type is based on inadmissible
analogy, and the third type are completely contrived (fabricated) tests -
here is analyzed as a typical example of the Hafele-Keating experiment
As a conclusion, the reader will uncover that the given explanations by
the modern physics of the results of all these tests do not meet the
requirement: the science to give a real factual explanation about the
world.
Actually, the proof is the accepted logical conclusion based on the available
evidence. In science, empirical data are collected through the process of
experimentation.
There are several aspects in relation to the question asked:
Mark 1: Our observations are not perfect, as they are limited by experimental
errors – both systematic and random.
Mark 2: Some experiments (because of their bad design) hide the reality,
which is actually very important to prove a hypothesis (like Michelson-Morley
experiment).
Mark 3: Different persons have different interpretations – they see different
“evidence” in the same observed event (depending on the point of view,
knowledge, and level of understanding). We all know the anecdote concerning
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein and Sir Arthur Eddington about: “Who are the three
men who have actually understood the theory of relativity…”
Mark 4: We have limitations that are beyond our control which we can hardly
be aware of. In this sense, the “Theorems of Incompleteness”, published by
Kurt Gödel in 1931, actually define the “border of the mathematical and the
human logic”. The “Theorems of Incompleteness” also refer to physics
because they can reveal the shortcomings of some explanations of physical
reality through mathematical logic.
Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem states that for any consistent system
F: the consistency of F cannot be proved in F itself. The reader can see, that
chapter 11 of the same book [2] concerns the “measurement reasons” for the
delusion about the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, and the
paramount importance of our primary physical constants (the units of
measurement) – that this is actually a demonstration of the second
incompleteness theorem in the field of physics.
Mark 5: Kurt Gödel demonstrated the “Theorems of Incompleteness” by
using the trick called “liar paradox”. The essence of the “liar paradox” is that
the “truth” value of a statement cannot be evaluated by reference to a
previously accepted value of the statement itself (self-referring). So far, the
famous experiments related to the behavior and measurement of the speed of
light in our time-spatial domain “near the surface of the Earth” have been
explained by modern physics (above all) using this “trick”. In the book, this
trick is named “logical circular reference”. Using the “logical circular
reference” false explanations are named “scientific explanations”. Moreover,
fabricated experiments using the “logical circular reference” were designed.
Typically, the purpose of such experiments is to check the validity of
erroneous hypotheses (such as the special theory of relativity) using the claims
of that same hypothesis/theory. Of course, the results of using the “liar
paradox” are always with a “true” value. In this way, we can say that an exact
mathematical proof cannot always correspond to the physical reality (cannot
correspond to the truth about nature).
Actually, the most essential part of the scientific method is that the theory
must meet the results of the experiments. However, the results of the
experiments must be considered through the prism of the aforementioned
marks.
The purpose of this chapter is to reveal the essence of all the “tests of the
special theory of relativity”, which have been considered within three major
types. The reader will uncover that the given explanations by the modern
physics of the results of all these tests do not meet the requirement: the
science to give a real factual explanation about the world.
All the “unexpected” and “inexplicable” results of the famous experiments
related to the behavior and measurement of the speed of light carried out in the
time-spatial region “near the surface of the Earth” have their scientific
explanation based on the classical mechanics and Galilean relativity that are
proven to be valid in our time-spatial region with a uniform gravitational field
intensity. All the evidence shows the validity of the “Thesis about the
Behavior of the Electromagnetic Radiation in the Gravitational Field of the
Universe” presented in chapter 10 of the book [2]. In turn, the thesis is based
on the presented in part II “Model of Uncertainty of the Universe” presented
in chapter 9 of the same book.
There is a range of various experiments, however, which contemporary
physics defines as “tests of the special theory of relativity”. The aim is to
interpret their results as “consistent” with the results of the special theory of
relativity and to prove its validity
What is the true essence of the most famous “tests of the special theory of
relativity”?
The first type of tests uses the trick “liar paradox”. They interpret the
experiments by referring to the false results of the special theory of relativity,
but this is, in fact, a “logical circular reference” (see Mark 5 above).
However, we all know that the “circular reference” is inadmissible – both in
mathematics (e.g. in spreadsheets) and in logic.
According to Robertson [3], the following three experiments are the
fundamental tests of the special theory of relativity. The first two of the
experiments refer to the first type of tests:
We see that none of the two experiments can be any proof of the special theory
of relativity, because the “truth” value of a statement cannot be evaluated by
reference to a previously accepted value of the statement itself (self-
referring).
So, the main question that needs to be put on the reliability of any experiment
with a claim to prove the validity of a theory is:
“Whether the evaluation of the results of the tests state on the results of the
theory the validity of which has to be proven?”
It turns out that most of the tests on the validity of the special theory of
relativity use the trick “logical circular reference”. Therefore, these “tests”
cannot serve as proof of the truth of any theory (in this case the special theory
of relativity).
“Special relativity also predicts that two light rays traveling in opposite
directions around a spinning closed path (e.g. a loop) require different
flight times to come back to the moving emitter/receiver (this is a
consequence of the independence of the speed of light from the velocity
of the source, see above). This effect was actually observed and is
called the Sagnac effect.”
This is absurd, even humiliating for modern physics, that the Sagnac effect,
which proves the invalidity of the special theory of relativity, is presented as
proof of its validity!!! It is interesting in this aspect, the work “Relativity in
Rotating Frames: Relativistic Physics in Rotating Reference Frames”
(Ref.[8]) to be read, too.
These are “tests” that use references to unsubstantiated statements that are
believed to be correct only by a non-existent analogy with truly proven correct
statements. Such is the case with the third, according to Ref. [3], “fundamental
test” of the special theory of relativity:
“We are inclined to think that the revealed deviation of ΔE/E from
relativistic prediction cannot be explained by any instrumental error
and thus represents a physical effect. In particular, we assume that the
energy shift of the absorption resonant line is induced not only by the
standard time dilation effect, but also by some additional effect missed
at the moment, and related perhaps to the fact that resonant nuclei in
the rotating absorber represent a macroscopic quantum system and
cannot be considered as freely moving particles.” [see Ref. [14].
In this stationary reference system (for the “inertial” observer from the North
Pole):
However, some of the questions that readers of this article may ask are:
3. Conclusion.
All the “scientific” explanations of the so-called “the fundamental tests of the
special theory of relativity”, given by its supporters, do not meet the
requirements of the science to give a real explanation about the physical world.
All of them support the delusion “special theory of relativity” and are
contrived in one or another sense. The presented analyses of the “fundamental
tests” in this article reveal their essence.
Important: If the special theory of relativity is valid for the physical reality,
the atomic clocks in Sweden, at sea level, will be constantly faster than
identical atomic clocks located near the Amazon River in Brazil (near the
equator at sea level) ... and all these “the fundamental tests of the special theory
of relativity” would not be necessary!
Final question:
If the special theory of relativity is not the biggest blunder in physics of the
20th century – why do not we adjust the clocks according to the latitude?
References