Assumptions and “Confirmations” of Relativity

PSI Blog 20210419 Assumptions and “Confirmations” of Relativity


Thanks to Boris, who recently left these related questions on the comment section of our “Time is Motion” Blog post:


“And this brings me to my question. You write in your paper that ‘If there is any consistency in SRT and GRT, it is the objectification of motion, Einstein’s most important philosophical error’. Essentially that the problem of Einstein’s theories is that they are theoretical models without any basis in empirical evidence. I think you write something akin to this even more clearly elsewhere but I can't find it right now.


Wouldn't the solution to this be to simply find (if possible) or construct one or several mathematical models that is an alternative that can then be used to aid the same applications or tested through the same experiments that is based on empirical science and that can be tied to natural phenomena that we can observe?


Indeed, this is what I regret almost every week if not sometimes every day of my life, that I didn't become a physicist to disprove Einstein.


But I know that I'm not exceptionally smart compared to some people, so why has no one else broken through the academic shroud yet?”


[GB: As I have mentioned previously, de Climont[1] lists 10,000 dissidents born since 1905 with a presence on the Internet. He remarks that there are over 2,500 theories opposed to relativity and the Big Bang Theory. Most of these reformists use mathematics in proposing alternatives, as you suggest, but to no avail. So, there must be something else going on. Otherwise, we would have to accept the absurdities forever (perfectly empty space, the explosion of the universe out of nothing, time dilation, 4 dimensions, etc.). In my latest book, "Religious Roots of Relativity," I unveil the culprit, and it is a hard nut to crack. Most folks are religious or have had religious backgrounds in which they still unknowingly accept many fundamental religious assumptions that underlie their attempts at a mathematical panacea. The result is GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out). That is why we have to scrutinize the foundations of our thinking. That is why "The Ten Assumptions of Science" have made such a great contribution.


Remember that the so-called “confirmations” of relativity require interpretations based on thinly veiled religious assumptions. For instance, in religions, the Creation idea starts with perfectly empty space, which was incidentally an ad hoc required for Einstein’s massless photon to travel perpetually through massless space. This is accepted today by regressive physicists and cosmogonists despite there being no evidence of perfectly empty space.


The bending of light as it passes the Sun was considered by Eddington as proof of Einstein’s “curved space-time” theory. The correct interpretation is that light is bent by simple refraction in the Sun’s atmosphere. Such paralogistical mistakes are rampant in today’s religiously tinted regressive physics. There are no “confirmations” of relativity that pass scrutiny of the assumptions underlying such interpretations. The whole of relativity theory must be discarded along with the religious assumptions on which its popularity is based. Good luck with that!]



[1]de Climont, Jean, 2021, The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics, Editions d' Assailly, 2510 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Climont-21].


No comments: