## Sweeping Implications For Spacetime Physics And Cosmology

If Special Relativity is flawed, then the foundation for all of spacetime physics and cosmology is built on an erroneous foundation and must soon collapse under its own weight. If one claims that Special Relativity directly describes what’s happening physically (e.g., time dilation describes different proper time accumulation rates), then contradictions such as the Twin Paradox occur. If one of the basic assumptions of Special Relativity is wrong, then the theory is fundamentally flawed and all that is built on top of it is unstable.

Relativists have seen that the empirical data is at odds with General Relativity – the next layer on top of Special Relativity in the current structure of spacetime physics. That’s why fudge factors had to be invented to bridge the gap between theory and data. Two of the fudge factors were Dark Energy and Dark Matter. The gap between current spacetime theory and the data was so large that these two dark fudge factors are claimed to be 95.1% of the content of the universe. Spacetime physics has indeed entered a Dark Age. And that’s not all. To reconcile the currently accepted model of the Big Bang with the data, one had to invent Inflation which requires that the universe expanded by a factor of at least 10^{78} in less than 10^{-32} seconds.

Starting with a flawed foundation has required spacetime physics to add layer after layer of correction factors. It’s time for a new foundation.

I think my 1987 paper on Special Relativity is still findable online, under the editorial title ‘Relativity – A Critique’. Published in Electronics & Wireless World. I have to mention an editorial error: for ‘an objective reality’ read ‘no objective reality’.

Yes, Stephen, I found it – see http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3307

If the speed of light is relative, not absolute, the foundation of Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is false. Nothing has an absolute speed. The speed of everything is relative. Speed depends on distance and time. Distance and time do not depend on speed. Everything is moving at many different speeds. The length of an object, the mass of an object, and the rate at which time passes for an object, does not depend on its speed, because nothing has an absolute speed. There is no time travel, no curved space.

“As an analogy, if one strikes the end of a steel rod with a hammer, the sound of the blow propagates along the rod at a velocity of V determined by the elasticity, e, and the density, d, of the rod in accordance with the expression V=1/(e*d) -.5. If one accepts the above explanation for the velocity of light, consistency would require that he be willing to accept the conclusion that, since the propagation of sound at its velocity of V requires

only the elasticity and density of the rod, the rod itself may be removed and only its elasticity and density retained to explain the propagation of the sound of the blow at the velocity V. While such a conclusion is obviously silly with respect to the rod, somehow is does not seem silly to Relativist when it is applied to Special Relativity’s interpretation of the propagation of light.”

The Einstein Hoax, pp 21-24

The comment above says, “If the speed of light is relative, not absolute, the foundation of Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is false ,,, The speed of everything is relative. Speed depends on distance and time. Distance and time do not depend on speed. Everything is moving at many different speeds.” I agree 100%.

The comment also says, “Nothing has an absolute speed.” That depends on what’s meant by “absolute speed”. In the sense that Einstein was using it regarding the speed of light, I’d agree with you. But in the sense of some physical effects are a function of speed/velocity with respect to another, single physical entity, I, and others, might refer to that as absolute velocity to contrast it with Einstein’s construct of relative velocity (i.e., velocity relative to each and every observer). For example, some EM effects are a function of a charge’s velocity wrt the EM field.

The comment also says, “… the rate at which time passes for an object, does not depend on its speed, because nothing has an absolute speed. There is no time travel, no curved space.” I agree. The rate at which “time” passes for an object does not depend on its speed. However, the empirical data, particularly from GPS, seems to indicate that the rate of (atomic) processes is dependent on velocity wrt a single physical entity – analogous to the EM example given above. For a more detailed discussion of that, go to http://twinparadox.net/ and read from Section 0 through section 2.1 on GPS. I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Is Dark Matter really a fudge factor? Newton’s work tells us that motion under gravitational influence is governed by the equation

v^2 = GM/r

Going by the observed high rotational velocity of outlying stars in our galaxy for example at their distance, r, the ‘v’ is much higher than is to be expected from the amount of matter visible as stars and luminous gases. Without tampering with Newton’s laws, how else is this to be explained?

The lead article is calling for new foundation.

Newton’s equations were derived heuristically in the 1600s from observations in the local Solar system only.

The fact that the equations don’t work outside the Solar system does call for the fixing (not tampering) of Newton’s equations.

There is so much we still don’t understand about those fundamental equations, yet they are held up as infallible dogma, because they are the underpinning foundation of so many theories, including relativity.

And Dark Matter is a fudge factor, a tampering, in attempt to make observations comply with our flawed fundamental equations.

~Paul