# Einsteinian Relativity Problems

Einsteinian Relativity Problems

*Portal Articles*⋅**groupKOS**

## Contents

- 1 Special Relativity (SR)
- 1.1 1) GPS data strongly disagrees with SR:
- 1.2 2) The key experiment that is alleged to prove SR time dilation actually disproves it
- 1.3 3) Data on the half life of muons in the atmosphere are at odds with SR
- 1.4 4) SR was derived from two relativity postulates.
- 1.5 5) Many physicists have documented math errors and logic errors in the derivation and in the final set of equations of SR
- 1.6 6) The Twin Paradox
- 1.7 7) Relativists have adopted many inconsistent and mostly mutually exclusive interpretations of SR
- 1.8 8) Other (General)
- 1.9 9) SR has become non-falsifiable

- 2 General Relativity (GR) – Gravitation Law
- 2.1 1) The only solutions to GR’s gravitational field equations are for a single body:
- 2.2 2) Relativists regularly use “bogus” methods when using GR:
- 2.3 3) The empirical data on light bending near the sun does NOT match GR predictions:
- 2.4 4) The empirical data on light bending near the distant stars does NOT match GR predictions:
- 2.5 5) Data on the Shapiro Delay does not match GR:
- 2.6 6) Data for galaxy rotation does not agree with GR:
- 2.7 7) Data for universe expansion does not agree with GR:
- 2.8 8) Data on the origins of the universe does not agree with GR:
- 2.9 9) Data on perihelion of Mercury does not agree with GR:
- 2.10 10) GR does not conserve energy or momentum:
- 2.11 11) There are problems meshing SR and GR together:

**Einsteinian Relativity Problems — Part I**;

## Special Relativity (SR)

### 1) GPS data strongly disagrees with SR:

The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are adjusted so that they will run at the same rate as the GPS atomic clocks on earth. One of the factors in this adjustment uses the “velocity” of the clocks. However, the system does not use the relative velocity between the satellite and earth clocks. If relative velocities were used, the system would not only be more complicated, but would also yield different, less accurate results. Instead, GPS uses velocity with respect to a single frame, namely, the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial) frame. This is not the SR method for determining time dilation as a function of velocity. SR does not claim that there is a single, preferred frame for measuring velocity (Note that choosing a different inertial frame for doing the velocity adjustment would yield different, less accurate results.) Finally, SR’s time dilation effect is symmetric whereas the data is asymmetric. In other words, half the GPS data on velocity is the exact opposite of what the SR time dilation effect predicts. (For more details on this problem and the two problems that follow see the “Data Does Not Match Special Relativity Time Dilation” page at **http://www.twinparadox.net**.

### 2) The key experiment that is alleged to prove SR time dilation actually disproves it

Regarding the previous point, many people, even a few at GPS, think that GPS uses SR. This is not true. Similarly, relativists contend that the Hafele-Keating (H-K) experiment proved SR time dilation whereas the data actually disproves it. Similar to the above, the H-K experiment did not use the relative velocity between the atomic clocks in airplanes and earth clocks. Instead, H-K used velocity with respect to a single frame, namely, the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial) frame. This is not the SR method for determining time dilation as a function of velocity. SR does not claim that there is a single, preferred frame for measuring velocity. Finally, SR’s time dilation effect is symmetric whereas the H-K data is asymmetric.

### 3) Data on the half life of muons in the atmosphere are at odds with SR

Muons are created in the upper atmosphere as byproducts of high energy cosmic ray proton impacts with atomic nuclei. Due to the thickness of the atmosphere and the very short half-life of the muon, very few such muons would be expected to reach the earth's surface. However, a great quantity of muons do reach the earth and even penetrate 100s of meters into the earth. This experimental result is interpreted as proof of Special Relativity's (symmetric) time dilation. However, to be consistent with Special Relativity, it is claimed that from the high speed muon's frame, it would appear that muons that are moving slowly with respect to the earth would be observed to have a much longer decay rate. However, since this phenomenon involves a threshold event, namely, the decay or non-decay of the muon, the phenomenon cannot be explained by relative simultaneity or in terms of SR. Either the muons are traveling at greater than the speed of light in the earth frame, which is not consistent with Special Relativity, or their half-life has been physically and asymmetrically extended between the event of being created in the upper atmosphere and the event of reaching the earth.

### 4) SR was derived from two relativity postulates.

The second postulate (the constancy of the speed of light (SoL)) is inherently illogical and has been shown empirically to be false: The 2nd postulate of SR states that the SoL in vacuo is c and is independent of the movement of the source and the observer for all inertial frames. Note that the postulate does NOT just say the SoL “is observed to be c”. So, for example, if a beam of light is traveling toward two observers along the x-axis and those two observers are separating from each other along the x-axis at near the speed of light, then SR’s 2nd postulate claims that light is approaching each observer at speed c. We could debate whether this is merely counterintuitive or actually counter logical. However, experiments show this assertion is invalid. When it was found that the SoL was not constant, the meter was redefined in terms of the SoL, so now Sol is c “by definition”. However, if SoL is not physically constant and the 2nd postulate is not valid, it cannot be made physically valid “by definition”. Virtually all the equations of SR were derived using the 2nd postulate. Hence, since the 2nd postulate is invalid, SR as a whole is invalid – even if some empirical results are consistent with its predictions.

### 5) Many physicists have documented math errors and logic errors in the derivation and in the final set of equations of SR

However, for a variety of reasons, most of which nothing to do with physics or science, these errors have not been addressed by mainstream physics. A greatly abbreviated list of some who have pointed out errors is: A. Lovejoy, H.E. Ives, G. R. Stilwell, H. Jeffreys, H. Dingle, E. G. Cullwick, D. H. Frisch, J. A. Smith, J. D. Edmonds, JR., S.J. Prokhovnik, M. Sachs, C.H. Brans, D.R. Stewart, D. Turner, R. Hazelett, I. McCausland, P. Hayes, C. K. Whitney, T. Van Flandern, S. Dumitru, H. Nordenson, P. Beckmann, C. S. Unnikrishnan, F. Smarandache, H. R. Reichenbach, M. Jammer, F. Selleri, R. Hatch, M. S. Khan, L. Essen, M. Allais, R. M. Santilli, B. G. Wallace and E.Gehrcke. For a list of over three thousand such papers by professional physicists, see http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf (For German version, see http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/buch.pdf).

### 6) The Twin Paradox

One of the most well known examples in the errors/inconsistencies/paradoxes category discussed in the prior point is the Twin Paradox. After deriving SR’s inherently symmetrical time dilation equation, Einstein claimed that “from this” we get the result that a clock/human that makes a round trip will have aged less (i.e., have accumulated less proper time) than a clock/human that stayed at the starting point. On the one hand, one can use SR’s time dilation equation assuming that it describes physical asymmetric clock slowing in the “stay-at-home’s” frame and get that numerical result. However, if one uses SR consistently for the traveler’s outbound and inbound frames, one would get the opposite result, hence, there seems to be a contradiction. Ultimately, Einstein agreed and shifted to using General Relativity to explain the net proper time difference (See Section 1A of the Report page at http://TwinParadox.net/). However, what’s not commonly realized is that the same logic that Einstein agreed rebutted his Twin Paradox claim is valid for rebutting any claim that SR, using relative velocity, predicts (asymmetric) physical effects. Hence, virtually all claims that such and such empirical data supports SR are due to misinterpreting the data. Finally, even the top relativists and official spokesmen for Einsteinian relativity continue to support multiple, mutually exclusive relativistic causes for Einstein’s Twin Paradox effect (See the Mainstream Response page at http://TwinParadox.net/)

### 7) Relativists have adopted many inconsistent and mostly mutually exclusive interpretations of SR

Because SR has many problems (see above), relativists have been forced to adopt many inconsistent and mostly mutually exclusive interpretations of SR in an attempt to explain away inconsistencies and contradictions. Taking SR’s time dilation as an example, we asked whether it described an asymmetric physical effect or a symmetric “just observed” effect (e.g., for example if two people walk away from each other, each observes the other to shrink in size – this is a (symmetric) “just observed” effect as neither is really physically shrinking). We asked prominent relativists, physics journals, physics organizations, Germany’s official spokesorganization for relativity and most were unable or unwilling to answer this simple question. The others claimed the answer was “Both” even though the two choices are defined as being mutually exclusive. A full list of these questions is given at the Mainstream Response page at the “Open Letter On Special Relativity” page at http://TwinParadox.net/ . The list is posed as questions, however, each question addresses an area where multiple, mutually exclusive answers have been given in published material by top relativists – it’s not just that different relativists give conflicting interpretations of the most fundamental aspects of SR, but that, as a rule, each relativist gives many such contradictory statements.

### 8) Other (General)

Above, where we have been specific, we have focused on SR’s time dilation as a problem area. However, one should not infer from this that it is simply SR’s time dilation that’s problematic. The problem with SR’s time dilation is that relative velocity, which is inherently symmetric between two observers/clocks, is implied as the cause of a physical effect which is inherently asymmetric (e.g., If A’s clock is physically slower than B’s clock, then B’s clock must be physically faster than A’s clock by the same factor.). Relative velocity is the key construct in virtually all of SR so virtually all of SR suffers from this common flaw. This common flaw came from the 2nd relativity postulate (constancy of SoL). From that postulate, Einstein concluded that the physical wavefront of light would be a sphere in all inertial frames and he used that physical model to derive the rest of SR. Hence, there would be complete physical symmetry between all inertial observers. As discussed above, this postulate and associated physical model is false, hence, this flaw permeated the rest of SR.

### 9) SR has become non-falsifiable

If one creates a theory that is inherently non-falsifiable, then many would contend that it is not a scientific theory. We have contended above that the empirical data has falsified SR. However, it seems that the relativists have adopted a de facto stance that relativity is non-falsifiable. This manifests itself as follows:

- Only disagreement with empirical data is allowed for falsifying SR so the fact that its’ key postulate is flawed or that math or logic errors are known are ignored or treated dismissively. This is a significant departure from the classic scientific method.
- Multiple, mutually exclusive interpretations of relativity can (unjustifiably) used to get around math and logic errors and even data incompatibilities
- Only SR is considered for its domain and papers on alternatives or problems with SR have been increasingly subject to censorship as the years have gone by.
- SR is claimed to have been proved “to 12 decimal places” by empirical data. This is not accurate. In some cases the data has been consistent with SR, but it has not been “proved” as the data is also consistent with other theories that have different physical models. Outside of accelerators where only one view of the data from a special frame is avalaiable, the empirical data is n sharp, qualitative disagreement with SR.
- SR is claimed to be one of the foundations blocks of modern physics. In some cases, this is incorrect as only one aspect of Sr is used and that one aspect is not unique to SR. In some cases, it is correct, but in those cases this dependency carries with it a demonstrable error.
- As Peter Hayes (Social Epistemology, 23, 57 (2009)) has documented, relativity has become more of a philosophy or religion and the normal rules of scientific falsification have been, in practice, abandoned.

**Edited for wiki-style and page-linking. (dem/am) 17:25, 29 November 2013 (MST)**

**Einsteinian Relativity Problems — Part II**

## General Relativity (GR) – Gravitation Law

### 1) The only solutions to GR’s gravitational field equations are for a single body:

GR’s gravitational field equations are notoriously complex to solve for any real world problem. The most famous solution is for a single massive, non-rotating body, namely, the Schwarzschild solution, and it describes how space-time would be curved in the presence of such a massive body. Hence, if there was a massive body in deep space far from anything else of significant size and one wanted to calculate the trajectory of another body that was many orders of magnitude smaller than the massive body so that its effect on space-time curvature would be very small, one could get a good approximation by using the Schwarzschild solution. Within our solar system other techniques must be used to get an approximate solution using GR. This gives one a lot of leeway when using GR as one can fiddle with adjustment and approximation terms until one gets a match between the data and one’s personal use of GR. For example, Einstein did such and claimed GR could correctly describe the perihelion path for Mercury. However, it was later discovered that his technique was in error - see below.

### 2) Relativists regularly use “bogus” methods when using GR:

Because GR’s gravitational field equations are too complex to be solved for even the simplest real world situations, relativists use superposition to add together many ultra simple solutions to get a “solution” for real world problems.. However, superposition is only allowed if the equations used are linear whereas GR’s gravitational field equations are non-linear. GR is mostly used in academia, in tests of GR and in theoretical cosmology.

### 3) The empirical data on light bending near the sun does NOT match GR predictions:

Since GR predicts that space-time will be curved in the presence of a massive body, it also predicts that the path of light passing close to a massive body will be bent. Light passing close to the rim of the sun is indeed observed to be bent somewhat close to what GR predicts. However, close to the rim, the light passes through the sun’s plasma and some scientists argue that the index of refraction of the sun’s plasma near the sun’s rim is the cause of the light bending near the rim - relativists dispute this claim. However, much more to the point one can compare the actual bending for a range of distances from the rim and compare it to GR’s predictions – see the “Deflection angle vs. impact parameter” slide in Anderson, et al’s presentation at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C041213/presents/0305_TLK.PDF. Note that GR’s predictions a modest amount for distances somewhat close to the rim (even using the relativists’ claim of little bending due to the plasma), however, as the distance from the rim increases, we can see a very wide divergence between the data and GR’s predictions. In addition, note that the bending varies by band type whereas, since the GR model holds that the bending is due to space-time curvature, that bending should be band independent.

### 4) The empirical data on light bending near the distant stars does NOT match GR predictions:

GR light bending predicts Einstein Rings as light from distant stars passes by nearer stars on the way to earth telescopes. A few Einstein Rings have been observed, but far, far fewer than theory predicts and those few rings are in locations where there are plasma gases. In addition, a time series of photographs of stars’ paths as the stars pass very near to the massive “black hole” at the center of our Milky Way galaxy should exhibit strong light bending, however, in this relatively plasma free area, no light bending is observed.

### 5) Data on the Shapiro Delay does not match GR:

Irwin Shapiro of Harvard noted that if an EM signal was sent from one side of the sun and passed near the sun and was received on the other side of the sun, there would be a time delay caused by the GR gravitational effects of its passing close to the sun. Initial experiments using microwave transmissions seemed to confirm this result. Since this GR effect would be due to curved spacetime, all frequencies should experience the same effect. However, for optical, infrared or the ultraviolet waves, there is virtually no detectable Shapiro Delay. Further, the delays observed for for microwave radiation can be uniquely explained by microwave interaction with the solar wind.

### 6) Data for galaxy rotation does not agree with GR:

When the rotational speed for galaxies, particularly in the outer regions, did not match GR predictions, something needed to be done. The gap was so big that none of the usual approximation and adjustment techniques used with GR could bridge that gap. However, a serious analysis of the validity of GR was not done. Instead, Dark Matter was invented as a fudge factor to bridge the gap between currently accepted theory and the empirical data. Some readers may think, “I’ve read about Dark Matter’s existence being confirmed.” However, if a (dark) fudge factor is needed to bridge the gap between GR and the data for galaxy “A”, then it should be no surprise if that same (dark) fudge factor is needed to bridge the gap between GR and the data for galaxy “B”. However, when Dark Matter has been looked for directly, the results have been negative (See http://www.nature.com/news/survey-finds-no-hint-of-dark-matter-near-solar-system-1.10494 and http://www.technologyreview.com/view/516681/the-incredible-dark-matter-mystery-why-astronomers-say-it-is-missing-in-action/

### 7) Data for universe expansion does not agree with GR:

When observations of galaxies seemed to indicate that the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate, this did not match GR predictions, so something needed to be done. The gap was so big that none of the usual approximation and adjustment techniques used with GR could bridge that gap. However, a serious analysis of the validity of GR was not done. Instead, Dark Matter was invented as a fudge factor to bridge the gap between currently accepted theory and the empirical data. The two dark fudge factors discussed here and in the prior item are not just some minor adjustment – together they are approximately 19 times bigger than all the known (i.e., non-dark) mass and energy in the universe. Now those are big fudge factors! No wonder many claim we have been a Dark Age of spacetime physics!

### 8) Data on the origins of the universe does not agree with GR:

According to the concept of a Big Bang being the origin of the universe, the universe should have been highly curved and highly heterogeneous. However, the empirical data showed the universe to be flat, homogeneous and isotropic. To bridge this gap between the empirical data and GR, an ad hoc solution, namely “inflation”, was created. We may have felt that the prior two fudge factors were large, but they’re dwarfed by inflation. Inflation requires that the universe expanded by a factor of at least 1078 in less than 10-32 seconds. Allegedly, George Smoot et al in the COBE project provided evidence for this inflation period, however, the problems with this conclusion will be discussed separately below in the Inflation section.

### 9) Data on perihelion of Mercury does not agree with GR:

Einstein’s 1915 paper “Erklarung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Realtivit¨atstheorie” (“Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”) was hailed as a significant proof of GR and brought the theory much credibility. However, analysis by Prof. Anatoli Andrei Vankov, subsequently confirmed by others, showed that the calculation was in error. Einstein did not solve for both terms in the elliptic integral – had he done the calculation correctly, it would have yielded a prediction that did not match the data.

### 10) GR does not conserve energy or momentum:

Einstein’s field equations in words is:

- Einstein tensor + cosmological-constant term = -κ(energy-momentum tensor)

In the standard (mixed) form it is:

- G
^{U}_{v}+ Λg^{U}_{v}= -κT^{U}_{v}

On the left side of this equation is the geometry, the curvature of spacetime (Einstein’s ‘gravitational field’), on the right side is the material cause of the ‘gravitational field’. In GR, matter is the cause of gravity, it warps spacetime. There is a causal link between spacetime and matter. The **-κ** is just a coupling constant.

Now the tensor divergence of the left side and the right side of this equation are indeed zero. However, this is still not a conservation equation. So Einstein introduced his so-called pseudotensor tuv, Template:Tuv in order to save his theory from the violation of the usual conservation laws. But the pseudotensor is not a tensor, and so it violates Einstein’s requirement that all the equations of physics be covariant and tensorial in form (i.e., independent of coordinate systems). By simply changing coordinate systems, Template:Tuv can be made to vanish in any ‘curved’ spacetime. It can also be made non-zero in ‘flat’ spacetime. The quantities tuv transform ‘like a tensor’ only under linear transformations. But ‘like a tensor’ is not a tensor. Einstein calls Template:Tuv the energy- momentum components of the gravitational field. He then constructed the following as his conservation of energy and momentum,

**∂(Template:Tuv + Template:Tuv)/∂x ^{u} = 0**

But we note that Einstein has not taken a tensor divergence here, only an ordinary divergence, because Template:Tuv is not a tensor and so he can’t take a tensor divergence (covariant derivative) of this expression. So the conservation law is just a fudge. Moreover, this ‘conservation’ expression is neither physically nor mathematically meaningful because Einstein’s pseudotensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols, and so it can’t be used to make any calculations or to represent any physical entity.

### 11) There are problems meshing SR and GR together:

Relativists have bemoaned the fact that they cannot do a seamless merger of GR and SR (See “Gravitation” by Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler). We see this occurring because the two theories are built on different models of spacetime. In SR, each observer has his own model of spacetime in which his rest frame has the fastest clocks and longest meter sticks and, hence, this infinity of observer based spacetime models all appear to be in conflict nevertheless they are all claimed to be equally valid. In contrast, GR’s gravitation law is built on a single, physical model of spacetime.

Separately, we note that GR’s gravitation law was derived without reference to SR’s 2n postulate. Hence, GR’s gravitation law does not share the same problems that have been enumerated above in the SR section as having their roots in the false 2nd postulate. However, when GR is extended beyond the law of gravitation per se and some SR constructs are grafted on, then some of the problems of SR are also grafted on as well.

**Edited for wiki-style and page-linking. (dem/am)14:25, 4 December 2013 (MST)**