Refuting Special Relativity

Einstein published his original paper on SRT in 1905. He begins it by questioning the idea that time is universal. He wants to show that time is local and that clocks which are separated in space, and on different bodies that are in motion, cannot be synchronized –that time ‘flows’ differently, as seen from one body, to the next. Here is the beginning of his argument:

"… a ray of light proceeds from A at time tA towards B, arrives and is reflected from B at time tB and returns to A at time t’A. According to the definition both clocks are synchronous if tB – tA = t’A – tB. We assume that this definition of synchronism is possible without invoking any 
inconsistency…"

The motivation behind this approach is easy to understand. The equation expresses the fact that the time the light travels from A to B is equal to the time required for the return path. If that is what defines synchronized clocks then it follows, from elementary logic, that if these times are not equal, the clocks are not synchronized. That was how Einstein came to the conclusion that clocks in motion will not tick at the same rate. The logic is correct –but the premise is wrong, so the conclusion is also wrong. If the clocks are synchronized and there is no motion, the equation is true, but not vice versa. The error in logic is analogous to defining ‘crime’ as the act of stealing, and then concluding that since you didn’t steal, you did not commit any crime.

He apparently does not realize that unless the clocks are synchronized in advance you can’t do the subtraction on either side. You can't write tB - tA without considering who knows this. So you need (a) previously synchronized clocks at A and B, because otherwise the subtraction makes no sense, and (b) you do the subtraction, tB – tA, as the observer at A, at a later time, when you find out (through communication at the speed of light or otherwise) what was the reading of the clock at B when the light pulse arrived. At that point you can also knows t'A - tB (the time it took the light on the return path to A) and can decide whether they are equal, in which case there was no movement between A and B while the light was going back and forth. If the two intervals are unequal you can only conclude that there was motion, but nothing about the clocks.

So you need the concept of synchronization ahead of this equation – and can’t define it by means of this equation. No way can you use the equality to define synchronization - much less to decide that if the equality does not hold (i.e. there is motion between A and B) that this implies that the clocks are (or were) not synchronized. The argument amounts to using 
synchronized clocks to prove that they were not synchronized – a contradiction, or whatever else you may call this logical fallacy. But without time dilation the Lorentz Transformation can't be derived and SRT vanishes - it loses its claim as a model of physical reality.

To shown how to synchronize time with relatively moving bodies consider for example two bodies, one of which is in an elliptical orbit about the other. They periodically share a common moment – when they are at maximum distance and at minimum distance from one another. If each sends out a beam of light to the other, the Doppler will reverse for both, changing from blue to red at the point of closest approach, and from red to blue at the farthest point. Each can set his clock when this happens. The periodicity is the same for both bodies, so time flows at the same rate.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Zweig, PhD   hjzweig@aol.com 

What is Gravity?

I just read your article [The Laws of Space and Observation].  The very same idea had occurred to me which was why I was surfing the internet for more info.

My ideas are not nearly as developed as yours.  It just occurred to me that gravity was the result of the interplay between mass and space and not intrinsic to the mass itself. I like the way you put it that it was the result of pressure from space on the mass. My idea is a tad different but generally in that vein.

I theorize that space itself is collapsing around a massive body not just pressuring the massive body. Since everything has to be somewhere, if it happens to be in a region where space collapsed on a massive body, it would exist on a compressed grid of space and would be directed with the other lines of force; to the center of the mass. Gravity.

What's interesting to me is that Gravity does not seem to be a depleting energy. It seems static. 

Greg Jaynes  gregjaynes@earthlink.net 

Dr. Siepmann responds:
       Though our descriptions may vary, the concepts we hold are indeed similar. I agree that gravity is not a depleting energy but rather the state of interplay between matter and space, which would make sense. If one thinks about it, the concept that gravity is based on a transfer of energy, such as would have to exist with the "gravity waves" theories, is ludicrous and easily invalidated. If it were necessary for the planets to impart energy to create gravity, our solar system and most of the universe would have come to a standstill long ago.

Using Objective Science to Influence Policy

I just wanted to write and thank you for your web site. I have been asking and asking my local newspaper the Las Vegas Review Journal to do a real story on the smoking issue. They never respond.

The war on smokers has gotten so bad. There are hiring discriminations in the work market. People seem to think that if they even smell smoke on your person they will fall over and die. The state legislators find smokers easy targets for taxing. This whole thing is out of hand.

Have you ever contacted Fox News to ask if you could do a fair and balanced report on smoking?  I have written them as well to ask if they would report the truth, they have never responded either.

I send your articles to our state legislators who are currently in session, of course one of the proposals is to increase the tobacco tax from .35 cents per pack to 1.05. I don't suppose you do any lobbying :-) You would be such a welcome change to the lies that our legislators appear to accept as fact.

Keep up the good work and thank you.

Sincerely,

Rhonda Upp    Rhondaru7@cs.com  
Las Vegas, NV

Immanuel Velikovsky

Why are you putting Immanuel Velikovsky in your "Unsung Heroes of Science"
list as even the one link you are providing descibes him as a crackpot?!

Jean-Christophe Mathae   jch.mathae@free.fr 

Dr. Siepmann responds:
       Today's crackpot can be tomorrow's genius and in the case of Immanuel Velikovsky, it seems that the data from the last few decades seem to support some of his "crackpot" theories. 
       Even Einstein was a crackpot and very wrong when it came to black holes. Even though his theories supported the existence of black holes, he refused to admit that they could exist. in fact, he wrote papers on why they could not exist (see "The Reluctant Father of Black Holes" Scientific American, June 1996 Volume 274 Number 6 by Jeremy Bernstein, where he documents Einstein's rejection of singularities and repeatedly argued against their existence). 
       Yes, some of Velikovsky's arguments are likely incorrect but some are still valid and being supported by new data. Few if any scientists of revolutionary thought are 100% right and not controversial. We try to offer links that are objective and try to present a balanced picture or the "hero" scientist.

P.S. Because of your email, we have tried to improve the links for Velikovsky, you may want to check out the other links.

Dear Dr. Siepmann,

Thank you again for publishing my article "Brief introduction to Basic Structures of matter theory and derived atomic models ..." and putting it in the category of extensive papers. The Journal of Theoretics is definitely a new category of peer review journal with a fast reviewing process and free of prejudice, allowing discussion about fundamental topics that currently could not find a place in other peer review journals.

Yours truly,
Stoyan Sarg   sarg@helical-structures.org