# Relativity Crisis

## Recommended Posts

Einstein has taken us down a wrong path, and 100 years later, physics has not recovered from the consequences. We need to look at the clear evidence and go back to working on real physics instead of science fiction! Theory and experiments show Special Relativity and General Relativity are optical illusions. Space and time are absolute as denoted by Galilean Relativity.

Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700's by Simone Laplace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by Ligo.

Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analalyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed.

This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength=c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity.

Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnitism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.

References:
--------------------
William D. Walker, PhD Thesis - Gravitational Studies, ETH Zurich, 1997

William D. Walker, Superluminal Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields Generated in the Nearfield of Dipole Sources, 2006
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603240

William D. Walker, Nearfield Electromagnetic Effects on Einstein Special Relativity, 2007
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0702166

Z. Wang, ‘New Investigations on Superluminal Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves in   Nondispersive Media’, Nov. (2003).
https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0311/0311061v1.pdf

J. C. Sten and A. Hujanen, ‘Aspects on the Phase Delay and Phase Velocity in the Electromagnetic    Near-Field’, Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 56, 67-80, (2006).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254072994_Aspects_on_the_phase_delay_and_phase_velocity_in_the_electromagnetic_near-field

Hans G. Shantz, "Near Field Phase Behavior", 2005
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4199558_Near_field_phase_behavior

##### Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, William.Walker39 said:

Einstein has taken us down a wrong path, and 100 years later, physics has not recovered from the consequences. We need to look at the clear evidence and go back to working on real physics instead of science fiction! Theory and experiments show Special Relativity and General Relativity are optical illusions. Space and time are absolute as denoted by Galilean Relativity.

Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700's by Simone Laplace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by Ligo.

Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analalyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed.

This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength=c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity.

Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnitism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.

References:
--------------------
William D. Walker, PhD Thesis - Gravitational Studies, ETH Zurich, 1997

William D. Walker, Superluminal Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields Generated in the Nearfield of Dipole Sources, 2006
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603240

William D. Walker, Nearfield Electromagnetic Effects on Einstein Special Relativity, 2007
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0702166

Z. Wang, ‘New Investigations on Superluminal Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves in   Nondispersive Media’, Nov. (2003).
https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0311/0311061v1.pdf

J. C. Sten and A. Hujanen, ‘Aspects on the Phase Delay and Phase Velocity in the Electromagnetic    Near-Field’, Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 56, 67-80, (2006).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254072994_Aspects_on_the_phase_delay_and_phase_velocity_in_the_electromagnetic_near-field

Hans G. Shantz, "Near Field Phase Behavior", 2005
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4199558_Near_field_phase_behavior

How do you account for observed cosmic ray muon lifetimes?

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, William.Walker39 said:

This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known.

This is known as conspiracy theory.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source.

Could you supply a source for this experiment?

##### Share on other sites

How does one observe a relativistic phenomenon using this alleged near field light if the object is more than a wavelength away?

Quote

Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength=c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield.

But you say that relativity holds in the farfield. So using EM radiation with a wavelength of a meter vs a micron, for an object 10 cm away, you’d get conflicting results.

If relativity is an illusion, how do you explain all of the experiments that agree with it? The Hafele-Keating experiment, for example.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analalyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge.

It's remarkable to describe Hertz' work in 1886 as "recent".

Anyway, if relativity only works in far-field but not near field, it's easy to test.

Get a VLF radio and a short or medium wave radio and wait for a thunderstorm.
Then listen for the crackle produced by lightning.

Say I'm 5km  from the lightning strike, listening on 5000 metres VLF and on 200 metres medium wave
For the first 5 km, the long wave signal is still "near field" so it will (if the OP is correct) reach me immediately.
But all but the 1st 200m   of the route of the MW signal is far field.
So it will be delayed by the time taken for propagation across the remaining 4800 metres at c

That's just about in the range where you might be able to hear it.
"The normal human threshold for detection of an ITD is up to a time difference of 10μs (microseconds)." From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference

It's trivial to measure electronically.

This is well into the range of "someone would have noticed".

Edited by John Cuthber
##### Share on other sites

• 1 month later...
On 8/22/2023 at 12:06 PM, exchemist said:

How do you account for observed cosmic ray muon lifetimes?

If Relativity is not true the speeds faster than light are possible. So if muons travel faster than light, then they will reach the earth.

On 8/22/2023 at 1:33 PM, Bufofrog said:

Could you supply a source for this experiment?

The links for the papers are posted in my comment. The experiment is specifically detailed in my Superluminal paper and independently confirmed in the last paper by Shantz.

On 8/22/2023 at 12:42 PM, Genady said:

This is known as conspiracy theory.

No, the following force laws are known to be instantaneous: Newtons law of gravity. Coulombs law for the electric force. Biot-Savart law for the magnetic force. This is because the laws are not a function of time. But they are valid for static fields, which is true for the nearfield. So electric and magnetic fields are instantaneous in the nearfield.

##### Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, William.Walker39 said:

No, the following force laws are known to be instantaneous: Newtons law of gravity. Coulombs law for the electric force. Biot-Savart law for the magnetic force. This is because the laws are not a function of time. But they are valid for static fields, which is true for the nearfield. So electric and magnetic fields are instantaneous in the nearfield.

Laws that preceded relativity and are known to be approximations. Static fields have no speed of propagation so there it’s incorrect to say they are instantaneous.

Are you going to address the objections raised?

##### Share on other sites

On 8/22/2023 at 1:51 PM, swansont said:

How does one observe a relativistic phenomenon using this alleged near field light if the object is more than a wavelength away?

But you say that relativity holds in the farfield. So using EM radiation with a wavelength of a meter vs a micron, for an object 10 cm away, you’d get conflicting results.

If relativity is an illusion, how do you explain all of the experiments that agree with it? The Hafele-Keating experiment, for example.

It only takes one experiment to disprove a theory, no mater how many experiments or people claim to support it. The reasons experiments csn be wrong include: failure to consider other possible explanations, experimental results not reproducible, cherry picking experimental data to match expected results, falsification of data. Both my theoretical results and experimental results have been discovered independently by me and other researchers and the results match very well. I have posted the papers for you to see for yourselves. This is very strong evidence. Relativity is not compatible with Instantaneous speeds. In fact Relativity reduces to Galilean Relativity, where time and space are absolute. If a moving object is observed with farfield light, then time and space will appear to change, but if nearfield light is used, then time and space will be observed to be the same.

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, William.Walker39 said:

It only takes one experiment to disprove a theory, no mater how many experiments or people claim to support it. The reasons experiments csn be wrong include: failure to consider other possible explanations, experimental results not reproducible, cherry picking experimental data to match expected results, falsification of data. Both my theoretical results and experimental results have been discovered independently by me and other researchers and the results match very well. I have posted the papers for you to see for yourselves. This is very strong evidence. Relativity is not compatible with Instantaneous speeds. In fact Relativity reduces to Galilean Relativity, where time and space are absolute. If a moving object is observed with farfield light, then time and space will appear to change, but if nearfield light is used, then time and space will be observed to be the same.

Examples have been given that disprove your hypothesis.

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Laws that preceded relativity and are known to be approximations. Static fields have no speed of propagation so there it’s incorrect to say they are instantaneous.

Are you going to address the objections raised?

They are correctly describing the nearfield and show that it is instantaneous. Look a Newtons gravity law. It accurately predicts the orbits of planets, satellites, etc. Simón Laplace in the late 1700's showed that if gravity did not propagate instantaneously, then the planets in the gravitational nearfield of the sun would not be stable. This is because forces tangential to the orbits would result, causing the planets to slow down, and spiral away due to conservation of angular momentum

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, William.Walker39 said:

If Relativity is not true the speeds faster than light are possible. So if muons travel faster than light, then they will reach the earth.

If Relativity were not true, then the Kinetic energy of the Muons would have to follow Newtonian rules, and the measured energies of the Muons are not large enough.

Example: For a muon traveling at 0.98c, Relativity gives a time dilation factor of ~0.2, meaning, for the muon to reach the detector within its lifetime under Newtonian conditions it would have to travel ~5 times as fast or  at 4.9c.  However, The KE of the muon moving at that speed under Newtonian rules would be almost 3 times greater than that predicted by Relativity and moving at 0.98c, and more importantly, Almost 3 times that measured in the experiments.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, William.Walker39 said:

They are correctly describing the nearfield and show that it is instantaneous. Look a Newtons gravity law. It accurately predicts the orbits of planets, satellites, etc. Simón Laplace in the late 1700's showed that if gravity did not propagate instantaneously, then the planets in the gravitational nearfield of the sun would not be stable. This is because forces tangential to the orbits would result, causing the planets to slow down, and spiral away due to conservation of angular momentum

That can only be a statement about Newtonian gravity. How could Laplace show anything about relativity?

IOW, Laplace showed something about a model known to be incorrect. So what?

##### Share on other sites

12 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

They are correctly describing the nearfield and show that it is instantaneous. Look a Newtons gravity law. It accurately predicts the orbits of planets, satellites, etc. Simón Laplace in the late 1700's showed that if gravity did not propagate instantaneously, then the planets in the gravitational nearfield of the sun would not be stable. This is because forces tangential to the orbits would result, causing the planets to slow down, and spiral away due to conservation of angular momentum

10 hours ago, swansont said:

That can only be a statement about Newtonian gravity. How could Laplace show anything about relativity?

IOW, Laplace showed something about a model known to be incorrect. So what?

Whilst there is some truth in both statements in this exchange I do not think this does justice to either Newton or Laplace.

In fact from Newton onwards the problem of 'Action at a distance' was known about and considered by many scholars up to and beyond Einstein, That is for at least four centuries from 1650.

Laplace did indeed consider the possibility of a finite speed for gravity, amongst other possibilities available at the time.

But he did not prove anything about it.

In fact, unfortunately both he and Newton were misled by erroneous observations by Halley.

Generally the problem was considered too dificult and kicked into the long grass

Both Newton and Laplace were dead before Faraday proposed the first real field theory.

A good, not too long, best current evaluation of who did what when up to the present day can be found at

Quote
 .... Despite this seeming success, Laplace also considered other possible explanations. Among these was the possibility that the secular acceleration might be caused by a finite propagation speed of gravity. Although Newtonian gravity was conventionally assumed to extend instantaneously to all distances, Laplace commented that it would be more natural for it to propagate from place to place in some finite time, consistent with the propagation of other physical effects, such as light. To have escaped notice, the propagation time for gravity is certainly very slight, but Laplace remarked that “it is infinitely far from an unobservable time of propagation to one that is absolutely nil”. He gave an analysis of the possible effects of a finite propagation speed for gravity in a memoir (“Sur le principe de la gravitation universelle, et sur les inegalites seculaires des planetes qui en dependent”) published in 1776, and many years later included this discussion in Volume IV, Book X, Chapter VII of his Traite de Mecanique Celeste. There he wrote in paragraph 22 If gravitation be produced by the impulse of a fluid directed towards the centre of the attracting body, the preceding analysis… will give the secular equation depending on the successive transmission of the attractive force   .......

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Laplace did indeed consider the possibility of a finite speed for gravity, amongst other possibilities available at the time.

But he did not prove anything about it.

Laplace’s analysis assumed one would use the retarded position of the sun that dictates the direction of the attraction if there were a finite speed of propagation. AFAIK it does show that a planet would spiral outward. It requires a very large (though not infinite) speed of propagation for stable orbits.

##### Share on other sites

16 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

Look a Newtons gravity law. It accurately predicts the orbits of planets, satellites, etc.

Not true. Not accurately enough for certain cases (perihelion of Mercury) and for certain purposes (high precision location in GPS systems).

In those cases, it's general relativity that does the job. And don't forget that GR reduces to special relativity at every point. There are very many ways in which we know SR to be right.

##### Share on other sites

I think that Laplace's great insight was to  realise that action-at-a-distance is not the same as instantaneous.

Also to be considered is the fact that the universe is an Earnshaw system. (1842  again after the death of Laplace but before Faraday introduced any sort of field, near or far.)

##### Share on other sites

On 8/22/2023 at 11:26 AM, William.Walker39 said:

Z. Wang, ‘New Investigations on Superluminal Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves in   Nondispersive Media’, Nov. (2003).
https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0311/0311061v1.pdf

J. C. Sten and A. Hujanen, ‘Aspects on the Phase Delay and Phase Velocity in the Electromagnetic    Near-Field’, Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 56, 67-80, (2006).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254072994_Aspects_on_the_phase_delay_and_phase_velocity_in_the_electromagnetic_near-field

Hans G. Shantz, "Near Field Phase Behavior", 2005
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4199558_Near_field_phase_behavior

I’ve had a look at these papers, and none of the authors here claim any kind of superluminal propagation (!) velocities, never even mind instantaneous propagation. This seems to be purely about certain quantum phenomena around tunneling and uncertainty (as one would expect in the near field), as well as phase velocities. Such apparent “superluminal” phenomena have already been known for some time (as is mentioned in Zhang), but do not constitute violations of local Lorentz invariance.

So far as I can see, nothing in these references even remotely supports your claim.

##### Share on other sites

The issue of superluminal velocities should not be be treated in a manner that its against SR and GR since both are well tested theories...the only possible route is to come with away that they co-exits each(SR/GR and superluminal effects) within their own domain.

##### Share on other sites

• 2 months later...

Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with that proves conclusively Relativity is just an optical illusion. It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it.

According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Consequently all of modern physics, which is based on Relativity, needs to be rethought.

Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A Train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to time (T not equal rT). Both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated. If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the Train, then it must be an optical illusion.

On 10/4/2023 at 3:01 PM, Markus Hanke said:

I’ve had a look at these papers, and none of the authors here claim any kind of superluminal propagation (!) velocities, never even mind instantaneous propagation. This seems to be purely about certain quantum phenomena around tunneling and uncertainty (as one would expect in the near field), as well as phase velocities. Such apparent “superluminal” phenomena have already been known for some time (as is mentioned in Zhang), but do not constitute violations of local Lorentz invariance.

So far as I can see, nothing in these references even remotely supports your claim.

The Wang and Sten papers support my theoretical calculations. The Shantz paper supports my experimental results of the antenna experiment.

Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with that proves conclusively Relativity is just an optical illusion. It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it.

According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Consequently all of modern physics, which is based on Relativity, needs to be rethought.

Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A Train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to time (T not equal rT). Both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated. If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the Train, then it must be an optical illusion.

Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145

##### Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, William.Walker39 said:

According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility

No it’s not, because measurements of space and time are inherently observer-dependent concepts - there is no absolute frame at all, so there cannot be a contradiction. What all observers agree on is the spacetime interval.

24 minutes ago, William.Walker39 said:

It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it.

This is a rather silly statement, since whatever device you have used to create this post is based on a relativistic theory - the Standard Model, especially the part of it dealing with electromagnetism. Obviously, your computer isn’t an optical illusion, and using relativity to construct it has resulted in quite a useful machine.

Have you ever used a microwave? An old-style CRT Monitor? Had an MRI scan? Seen a thermometer field with mercury? Used the GPS on your phone? Used electricity generated in a nuclear power station? Etc. All of these are things that inherently rely on relativistic effects to work.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real.

According to relativity, two inertial observers will see each other moving while they claim to be at rest. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility.

Except, of course, that second statement is 100% wrong - motion is relative. As Markus notes, there is no absolute frame, so it's perfectly fine for one to claim they are at rest and someone else is moving, and for the other observer to claim the same thing. The important issue is that physics works the same for both, and there isn't an experiment you can do to conclude absolute motion or absolute rest for inertial observers.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A Train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to time (T not equal rT). Both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated. If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the Train, then it must be an optical illusion.

Did you get your Physics PhD from a home schooling environment or something?  There seems to be some rather glaring holes in your physics education...

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with that proves conclusively Relativity is just an optical illusion. It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it.

In other words, "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

##### Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:
2 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A Train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to time (T not equal rT). Both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated. If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the Train, then it must be an optical illusion.

Did you get your Physics PhD from a home schooling environment or something?  There seems to be some rather glaring holes in your physics education...

Yeah, I thought that. William.Walker39's argument seems too much like a n00b mistake for it to have come from a PhD physicist.

Edited by KJW

## Create an account

Register a new account