# Einstein's core idea about gravity just passed an extreme, whirling test in deep space

#### Xinhang Shen

It seems that many physicists still don't know that Einstein's relativity is logically wrong and can be easily disproved through Lorentz Transformation of clock time i.e. our physical time between two inertial reference frames:

Let's look at the twin paradox which is designed to demonstrate that relative speed would generate time dilation as predicted by special relativity which claims that when the speed of a clock relative to an observer was close to the speed of light, the observer would see the clock slow down close to stop. But, it is pretty ironic as shown on Wikipedia, the final conclusion of the twin paradox becomes that, after a high speed space travel, it is the acceleration of the traveling twin (not his speed relative to his twin brother) that made him younger than his twin brother staying on the earth because both twins had experienced exactly the same speed relative to each other during the entire trip. Is it funny that the original argument that relative speed generates time dilation is completely lost, although relativists still think that the paradox has been solved? In fact, this paradox has simply confirmed that relative speed can never generate time dilation and special relativity is wrong.

Actually Einstein's relativity has already been disproved both theoretically and experimentally for more than four years. The fatal mistake of Einstein's relativity is that it uses Lorentz Transformation to redefine time and space, and the newly defined time is no longer the physical time we measure with physical clocks. The claim of the constant speed of light is very similar to the claim that everybody had the same height if the height is measured with a new ruler - an elastic band a ruler. Obviously, such claims do not make any sense.

In a physics theory, the physical time shown on a physical clock is T = tf/k where t is the theoretical time, f is the frequency of the clock and k is a reference frame independent calibration constant.

In Newton's mechanics, the absolute Galilean time makes frequency f a reference frame independent constant. Therefore, we can set k = f to make the clock show the theoretical time i.e. the absolute Galilean time t: T = tf/k = tf/f = t.

But in special relativity, the relative relativistic time makes frequency f a reference frame dependent variable and can't be eliminated by setting k = f in the clock formula. Thus, clock time can't be simply calculated by the formula: T = tf/k != t in special relativity. Therefore, we need to verify whether clock time T and relativistic time t have the same property in Lorentz Transformation.

When a clock is observed in another inertial reference frame, we have t' = rt and f' = f/r and T' = t'f'/k = rt(f/r)/k = tf/k = T, where r = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), which means that the physical time T won't change with the change of the inertial reference frame, and is Lorentz invariant and absolute, completely different from relativistic time. That is, a clock still measures the absolute time in special relativity.

Some people may argue that relativistic time has to be shown on two clocks. OK, here is it.
If you have a clock (clock 1) with you and watch my clock (clock 2) in motion and both clocks are set to be synchronized to show the same physical time T relative to your inertial reference frame, you will see your clock time: T1 = tf1/k1 = T and my clock time: T2 = tf2/k2 = T, where t is relativistic time of your frame, f1 and f2 are the frequencies of clock 1 and clock 2 respectively observed in your inertial reference frame, k1 and k2 are calibration constants of the clocks. The two events:

(Clock1, T1=T, x1=0, y1=0, z1=0, t1=t)
and
(Clock2, T2=T, x2=vt, y2=0, z2=0, t2=t)

are simultaneous measured with both relativistic time t and clock time T in your reference frame. When these two clocks are observed by me in the moving inertial reference frame, according to special relativity, we can use Lorentz Transformation to get the events in my frame (x', y', z', t'):

(clock1, T1', x1'=-vt1', y1'=0, z1'=0, t1')
and
(clock2, T2', x2'=0, y2'=0, z2'=0, t2')

where

t1' = r(t1-vx1/c^2) = r(t-0) = rt
t2' = r(t2-vx2/c^2) = r(t-tv^2/c^2) = rt/r^2 = t/r
T1' = t1'f1'/k1 = (rt)(f1/r)/k1 = tf1/k1 = T1 = T
T2' = t2'f2'/k2 = (t/r)(rf2)/k2 = tf2/k2 = T2 = T

in which r = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

That is, no matter observed from which inertial reference frame, the two events are still simultaneous measured with physical time T i.e. the two clocks are always synchronized measured with clock time T i.e. clock time T is absolute, but not synchronized measured with relativistic time t'. In real observations, we can only see clock time T but not relativistic time. Therefore, clock time is our physical time and absolute, totally different from relativistic time in Lorentz Transformation and thus relativistic time is a fake time without physical meaning. The change of the reference frame only makes changes of the relativistic time from t to t' and the relativistic frequency from f to f', which cancel each other in the formula: T= tf/k to make the physical time T unchanged. This proves that even in special relativity our physical time is still absolute. Therefore, special relativity based on the fake relativistic time is wrong.

That the physical time (i.e. clock time) is absolute has been clearly confirmed by the physical fact that all the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites are synchronized not only relative to the ground clocks but also relative to each other to show the same absolute physical time, which directly denies the claim of special relativity that clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because "time is relative".

You will find the mathematical proofs that in special relativity, the real speed of light still follows Newton's velocity addition law, and both time dilation and length contraction are simply illusions in my peer-reviewed journal paper and conference paper which are available free of charge at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297528348_Clock_Time_Is_Absolute_and_Universal

#### Hayseed

The puzzle of a constant velocity has always been a mystery. This is because everyone has been taught that EM waves are alternating and continuous, like media waves are. This is probably because of what we measure when we detect them.

But media waves have different and relative velocities. Why not light? How does one solve this mystery with an omnipresent time.

EM radiation is the instant emission, of discreet volumes(or lengths or durations) with a 50% duty cycle, is does not have frequency until detected. It has duty cycle. Alternation is not required. Single pole particles emit.

If you understand RF, one precision rectified half-wave sine signal, fed into a dipole will show you this at the absorber/receiver.

#### jeffrey

It seems that many physicists still don't know that Einstein's relativity is logically wrong and can be easily disproved through Lorentz Transformation of clock time i.e. our physical time between two inertial reference frames:

Let's look at the twin paradox which is designed to demonstrate that relative speed would generate time dilation as predicted by special relativity which claims that when the speed of a clock relative to an observer was close to the speed of light, the observer would see the clock slow down close to stop. But, it is pretty ironic as shown on Wikipedia, the final conclusion of the twin paradox becomes that, after a high speed space travel, it is the acceleration of the traveling twin (not his speed relative to his twin brother) that made him younger than his twin brother staying on the earth because both twins had experienced exactly the same speed relative to each other during the entire trip. Is it funny that the original argument that relative speed generates time dilation is completely lost, although relativists still think that the paradox has been solved? In fact, this paradox has simply confirmed that relative speed can never generate time dilation and special relativity is wrong.

Actually Einstein's relativity has already been disproved both theoretically and experimentally for more than four years. The fatal mistake of Einstein's relativity is that it uses Lorentz Transformation to redefine time and space, and the newly defined time is no longer the physical time we measure with physical clocks. The claim of the constant speed of light is very similar to the claim that everybody had the same height if the height is measured with a new ruler - an elastic band a ruler. Obviously, such claims do not make any sense.

In a physics theory, the physical time shown on a physical clock is T = tf/k where t is the theoretical time, f is the frequency of the clock and k is a reference frame independent calibration constant.

In Newton's mechanics, the absolute Galilean time makes frequency f a reference frame independent constant. Therefore, we can set k = f to make the clock show the theoretical time i.e. the absolute Galilean time t: T = tf/k = tf/f = t.

But in special relativity, the relative relativistic time makes frequency f a reference frame dependent variable and can't be eliminated by setting k = f in the clock formula. Thus, clock time can't be simply calculated by the formula: T = tf/k != t in special relativity. Therefore, we need to verify whether clock time T and relativistic time t have the same property in Lorentz Transformation.

When a clock is observed in another inertial reference frame, we have t' = rt and f' = f/r and T' = t'f'/k = rt(f/r)/k = tf/k = T, where r = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), which means that the physical time T won't change with the change of the inertial reference frame, and is Lorentz invariant and absolute, completely different from relativistic time. That is, a clock still measures the absolute time in special relativity.

Some people may argue that relativistic time has to be shown on two clocks. OK, here is it.
If you have a clock (clock 1) with you and watch my clock (clock 2) in motion and both clocks are set to be synchronized to show the same physical time T relative to your inertial reference frame, you will see your clock time: T1 = tf1/k1 = T and my clock time: T2 = tf2/k2 = T, where t is relativistic time of your frame, f1 and f2 are the frequencies of clock 1 and clock 2 respectively observed in your inertial reference frame, k1 and k2 are calibration constants of the clocks. The two events:

(Clock1, T1=T, x1=0, y1=0, z1=0, t1=t)
and
(Clock2, T2=T, x2=vt, y2=0, z2=0, t2=t)

are simultaneous measured with both relativistic time t and clock time T in your reference frame. When these two clocks are observed by me in the moving inertial reference frame, according to special relativity, we can use Lorentz Transformation to get the events in my frame (x', y', z', t'):

(clock1, T1', x1'=-vt1', y1'=0, z1'=0, t1')
and
(clock2, T2', x2'=0, y2'=0, z2'=0, t2')

where

t1' = r(t1-vx1/c^2) = r(t-0) = rt
t2' = r(t2-vx2/c^2) = r(t-tv^2/c^2) = rt/r^2 = t/r
T1' = t1'f1'/k1 = (rt)(f1/r)/k1 = tf1/k1 = T1 = T
T2' = t2'f2'/k2 = (t/r)(rf2)/k2 = tf2/k2 = T2 = T

in which r = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

That is, no matter observed from which inertial reference frame, the two events are still simultaneous measured with physical time T i.e. the two clocks are always synchronized measured with clock time T i.e. clock time T is absolute, but not synchronized measured with relativistic time t'. In real observations, we can only see clock time T but not relativistic time. Therefore, clock time is our physical time and absolute, totally different from relativistic time in Lorentz Transformation and thus relativistic time is a fake time without physical meaning. The change of the reference frame only makes changes of the relativistic time from t to t' and the relativistic frequency from f to f', which cancel each other in the formula: T= tf/k to make the physical time T unchanged. This proves that even in special relativity our physical time is still absolute. Therefore, special relativity based on the fake relativistic time is wrong.

That the physical time (i.e. clock time) is absolute has been clearly confirmed by the physical fact that all the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites are synchronized not only relative to the ground clocks but also relative to each other to show the same absolute physical time, which directly denies the claim of special relativity that clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because "time is relative".

You will find the mathematical proofs that in special relativity, the real speed of light still follows Newton's velocity addition law, and both time dilation and length contraction are simply illusions in my peer-reviewed journal paper and conference paper which are available free of charge at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297528348_Clock_Time_Is_Absolute_and_Universal

#### jeffrey

One of the guide lines is to avoid excessively long discussions. It seems you have presented a entire paper. Perhaps you could present it to a journal for publication. Then it could be better reviewed by your peers.
Another guide line recommends to limit your conservations to subjects that are debatable and do not have a over whelming amount of evidence.
I am sure you have done a great job on your paper and it really needs a proper venue as this is more casual setting.

#### jeffrey

The puzzle of a constant velocity has always been a mystery. This is because everyone has been taught that EM waves are alternating and continuous, like media waves are. This is probably because of what we measure when we detect them.

But media waves have different and relative velocities. Why not light? How does one solve this mystery with an omnipresent time.

EM radiation is the instant emission, of discreet volumes(or lengths or durations) with a 50% duty cycle, is does not have frequency until detected. It has duty cycle. Alternation is not required. Single pole particles emit.

If you understand RF, one precision rectified half-wave sine signal, fed into a dipole will show you this at the absorber/receiver.

#### jeffrey

What are media waves?

#### Hayseed

A media wave is a wave, that requires a media to propagate.

Nice test, and another test passed!

But, nitpicking the article, the the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, where the weak principle is the Galilean principle and the strong principle holds for bodies that are so large that they contribute a gravitational field.

It seems that many physicists still don't know that Einstein's relativity is logically wrong and can be easily disproved through Lorentz Transformation of clock time <snip> [various links to own material that is not published in peer review].
Self promotion.

How can scientists know anything but the empirical facts at hand - which well tested fact and theory the article points out has passed another test - when "logical proof" has nothing to do with it?

Any counter evidence can be published in peer review - your ideas has not been.

The puzzle of a constant velocity has always been a mystery. This is because everyone has been taught that EM waves are alternating and continuous, like media waves are. ... Why not light?
I think you have confused, perhaps in writing, two different concepts.

Constant velocity is not a mystery.

My science hero, which work underlies Einstein's equations describing general relativity by the way, Emmy Noether showed that basic nature laws derives from symmetries and imply "charge" conservation [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem ]. Intrinsic symmetries of quantum fields hence imply conservation of various field charges such as electromagnetic charge, and extrinsic symmetries of space hence imply conservation of charges such as momentum [space homogeneous as you move along a vector] and angular momentum [space isotropic as you rotate]. Why quantum charges are discrete, say 1 or 1/3 units of electron charge, while space charges are continuous is more complicated - still not a mystery though. (The naive idea is that quantum physics often express discreteness such as discrete energy levels in an atom. Such discreteness comes out of putting constraints such as potential barriers on the atom fields. Essentially you get intrinsic, constrained, physics of discrete charges and extrinsic, default not constrained. physics of continuous charges. )

So, good, constant velocity is a given default state, if space exist and nature has laws.

The universal speed limit of massless field particles such as photons is due to precisely relativity. It comes out of preserving laws among different observers. In the same vein the equivalence principle comes out of preserving global laws.

So, good, now we know how to have laws in nature.

Last edited:

The puzzle of a constant velocity has always been a mystery. This is because everyone has been taught that EM waves are alternating and continuous, like media waves are. ... Why not light?
I think you have confused, perhaps in writing, two different concepts.

Constant velocity is not a mystery.

My science hero, which work underlies Einstein's by the way, Emmy Noether showed that basic nature laws derives from symmetries and imply "charge" conservation [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem ]. Intrinsic symmetries of quantum fields hence imply conservation of various field charges such as electromagnetic charge, and extrinsic symmetries of space hence imply conservation of charges such as momentum [space homogeneous as you move along a vector] and angular momentum [space isotropic as you rotate]. Why quantum charges are discrete, say 1 or 1/3 units of electron charge, while space charges are continuous is more complicated - still not a mystery though.

So, good, constant velocity is a given default state, if space exist and nature has laws.

The universal speed limit of massless field particles such as photons is due to precisely relativity. It comes out of preserving laws among different observers. In the same vein the equivalence principle comes out of preserving global laws.

#### Mario Sanchez

Não gosto de debates estéreis como esses. Coloquei ao começo um resumo de meu livro. E avisei que fiz as máquinas que trazem a Energia sem Limite. Ignoraram tudo. Chamam para teorias indemonstráveis, quando eu chamo para levar à América a geração elétrica sem poluição e sem consumo de nada, que já tenho. A resposta é que não acreditam e se não acreditam eu sou o errado.... Só se fala em inglês aqui? então traduzam pra vocês.

#### Hayseed

When one speaks of the constant velocity of light.......it is NOT in reference to the fact that the velocity does not change. When speaking of light........the constant velocity refers to the same speed/velocity(c)........and the fact that another or a cross velocity, can not be be added or subtracted.

That is the puzzle. Because all other velocities can be varied. And the only physical way to explain it.......is to vary time. A cheap and lazy math trick.

I am trying to express to you........that one does not need to make time variable to explain it.

Time and length are omnipresent. Modern science does not understand light. Or gravity. Or mass/matter.

What all of you have been taught about light is wrong. Light has an instant emission time. Do you understand what that means? It's intermittent and discreet......do you know what that means?

Do you understand how an instant emission time with discreet propagation.........changes your understanding of the signals you receive?

Can you discern........the difference.......between the emitter moving or the receiver moving? I can.

Can you see now.......that one could double the information on any rf channel.......without increasing the bandwidth? This is because for half the time, the rf channel is not being used. EM emission does not have frequency, it has a 50% duty cycle. It only has frequency after you absorb it.

A simple experiment will show you this.

#### Mario Sanchez

Não gosto de debates estéreis assim. Eu coloquei um resumo do meu livro. E eu disse que fiz as máquinas que trazem energia ilimitada. Você ignorou tudo. Você apresenta teorias indemonstráveis, quando eu posso levar a geração de eletricidade para a América sem poluição e sem consumir nada, o que eu já tenho. A resposta é que ele não acredita e se não acredita, eu estou errado ...
Eu não falei sobre teorias da luz. Eu falei sobre converter a força "G" em geração de energia. E isso acontece sem tempo.
E eu recebo este discurso, e este não é um fórum:
O quebra-cabeça da velocidade constante sempre foi um mistério. Isso ocorre porque todo mundo aprendeu que as ondas EM são alternadas e contínuas, como ondas de mídia. Provavelmente, isso se deve ao que medimos quando os detectamos.
Mas as ondas da mídia têm velocidades diferentes e relativas. Por que não luz? Como alguém resolve esse mistério em um tempo onipresente?
A radiação EM é a emissão instantânea de volumes discretos (ou comprimentos ou durações) com um ciclo de trabalho de 50%, sem frequência até que seja detectada. Tem um ciclo de serviço. Alternância não é necessária. Partículas de pólo único emitem.
Se você entender RF, um sinal senoidal de meia onda retificado e preciso, alimentado em um dipolo, mostrará isso no absorvedor / receptor.

#### Uncle Al

Einstein's inertial rocket: The contrast to be tested is mounted within an isolated volume accelerated by a rocket. The test is unleashed disconnected from the accelerated hardware - in vacuum free fall. Obviously nothing differentially happens within the experiment. Everything and its parts continue to vacuum free fall along parallel-displaced, identical minimum action trajectories. The rocket only affects the connected observers.