The Variability of the Measurement of Distance, Rejected

A dozen instances, where the principal postulate of special relativity that,- 'the measurement of distance varies with the speed of the observer',- considered crucial for the maintenance of the speed of light at 'c', is overlooked or ignored. [It should be borne in mind, that It only takes one negative or contrary finding to disprove a theory. So while a dozen examples are given, any one of them is sufficient to disprove the theories of special and general relativity.]

(1) There is a prime example of having to ignore the postulate, whenever we invoke the principle of equivalence. The reader will recall that in order to demonstrate the effect of gravity on light, the thought experiment of a cabin being accelerated in space is used. If the cabin is accelerated at the rate of 9.8 metres a second, 1g of gravity will be simulated in it. According to special relativity, the measurement of distance inside the cabin, remains unchanged, (since the observer in the cabin is not moving relative to it). However, this runs directly counter to a second provision of special relativity, which requires that, as measured from the cabin, distance shortens in its line of travel. The degree of shortening is commensurate with the cabin's speed. This means that it is necessary to ignore special relativity, so that the external distance the cabin travels can agree with the distance measured inside the cabin. In other words, if an object is dropped in the cabin, the distance through which it appears to fall, is merely the distance the cabin travels through space in the opposite direction. This requirement precludes any notional foreshortening of space in the line of travel of the cabin, in direct contravention of special relativity.

(2) The principle of equivalence, provides another example, when a rotating disc is used to simulate gravity. The formula for the speed of a clock at the rim of a rotating disc is V=wr where w is the number of revs per second and r is the radial distance to the clock. This formula does not admit of any foreshortening of distance as required under special relativity. The calculated amount of time dilation and redshift, is nonetheless correct. The correct results are obtained, notwithstanding that special and general relativity have not been adhered to.

(3) Staying with the rotating disc experiment, we find a further example. Using the disc, it was seen that the principle of equivalence correctly simulated the force of gravity and time dilation. It was established that if a clock was fitted at the disc's rim and another at the centre, when the disc is rotated work done against the centrifugal force between the two clocks, would be the same as working against a gravitational force that has the same time dilations. It is common ground that this principle is correct. It therefore, becomes evident that the speed of the clock at the rim of the disc, cannot be limited to 'c', by the foreshortening of distance or any other method. If it could, an artificial limit would be imposed on both the centrifugal force and gravity, felt by the clock at the rim. However, the postulate is ignored, as it is universally accepted that there is no limit for gravity and time dilation, they can be infinite in extent.

(4) In special and general relativity there is a fundamental relativistic premise that a moving observer may consider himself to be stationary and the object he is looking at to be doing all the moving. Such a premise of questionable validity cannot exist, even notionally, simultaneously with the premise that the measurement of distance for the observer alters with motion. It would mean that an observer would be able to alter the measurement of distance merely by thinking he was stationary.

(5) Unless the foreshortening of space is ignored, the amount of Doppler redshift would be wrong for an observer moving away from a source of light. The effect of foreshortening distance, on the wavelength of the light, would be to shorten it , that is to say, the light would be blue shifted, which is not observed.

(6) Those cosmologists that subscribe to the big bang and expanding universe model, have to ignore the postulate relating to the measurement of distance as it is not compatible with observation. The observed proportionality of redshift to distance (Hubble's constant)becomes impossible to account for, if the measurement of distance is a relativistic variable. Under special relativity, the distance to a galaxy cluster would vary in the amount of foreshortening, depending on its recessional velocity. It would arbitrarily change depending on which galaxy cluster the observer chose to look at.

(7) Unless the postulate is ignored, the inverse square law for gravity would have no meaning for a moving body. There are two effects that need to be taken into account. The first is that the resultant gravitational effect would be too great. This would be due to the body's speed increasing its mass, which includes gravitational mass. This error would be augmented by the second effect. Special relativity requires the body's speed to reduce the distance to any object that lies ahead or behind. This would break the inverse square law for any gravitational object that is in the body's line of travel, by reducing the distance between them. It would cause a reduction in the normal amount of the tapering off of gravitational effect.

(8) If in special relativity the speed of light is to be regarded as a constant, then in a forlorn attempt to make the arithmetic work, the theory is obliged to evoke the postulate that the measurement of distance alters relative to the measurer's speed. However, it fails markedly in this regard. It does not accord with observation, in particular with Doppler redshift. We have seen in that instance, the postulate has to be ignored to calculate the correct amount of stretching or reddening of the wavelength. Significantly the postulate does not attempt to address the problem of the speed of light where the change in the light's frequency is due to the dilation of time, caused not by motion, but proximity to mass. It has to be remembered that in special and general relativity the frequency of light is considered to reduce in dilated time. In those theories the frequency of light is not treated as a micro quantum wave but like the ticking of a macro clock. Viewed from contracted time, the tick of a clock appears slower in more dilated time, leading scientists to think that the frequency of light behaved similarly. It can however, be shown by an experiment known as the skyscraper thought experiment, (see paper entitled E=mc²), that in dilated time the frequency of light really, goes up and not down. The essence of that experiment is to measure the speed of light by timing the duration of a single light experiment but using three different clocks, each in a different time dilation, at three different levels of the skyscraper. Because the experiment is common to the three clocks, the light's frequency and speed will be higher, as measured by the clock on the ground floor, in dilated time. The speed of the light will be found to reduce the higher up the skyscraper the clocks are, as time contracts with height, or more accurately, as the distance increases from the mass of the Earth. This inescapable conclusion, is the direct opposite to special and general relativity. This new insight, reveals the route to quantum gravity, which can never be achieved using general relativity, (see 'Time, The Hidden Dimensions Of The Missing Physics' and Paper entitled Quantum Gravity).

(9) We have seen how the variable measurement of distance was a misguided attempt to rationalize mathematically the mistaken assumption that the speed of light is the constant 'c'. Special relativity solely addresses the question of the speed of light and then only for objects that are in motion. This is because it was thought at the time that the question of classical relativity and the principle of the addition of velocities was the main problem to be resolved for light. The addition of velocities is merely the mechanical observation that where a person throws a ball at say 10 miles an hour to a person who is running towards him at 10 miles an hour, the runner will catch the ball at a closing speed of 20 miles an hour. Light does not behave like that, but has a constant closing speed regardless of the runner's speed, or for that matter, the speed the thrower is moving at. Special relativity in trying to resolve the problem with light, by giving it a constant speed, regardless of the observer's time dilation, signalled its failure by creating further problems with other aspects of physics. For example it does not address the question of the measurement of relative kinetic energy. Here we need to consider the kinetic energy of an object moving in a spaceship, as measured relatively from the Earth and the spaceship. Let us imagine a spaceship travelling at a speed which is a substantial proportion of the speed of light on Earth. As measured from Earth the speed of the spaceship is always below 'c'. Special relativity suggests that the mass of the spaceship appears to approach infinity the nearer its speed gets to 'c'. The supposition is that the increased inertial effect makes it increasingly more difficult to accelerate the spaceship. This would ultimately result in the spaceship's inertial mass becoming infinite at 'c', requiring an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it further. Interpreting our observations from Earth in this manner means that, if the spaceship is suddenly brought to a halt, anything that is loose in the cabin will hit the bulkhead with a kinetic energy equal to its speed, 'as measured from Earth' multiplied by its mass, 'as increased by its speed'. However, the kinetic energy of the object has to be the same measured in the spaceship as measured from Earth. Now we have a problem, as the spaceship and all that's in it are not aware of any increase in mass. For them everything weighs the same as on Earth. So if the mass of the object has not increased then the speed must have increased. It is the only way that the kinetic energy can be measured equally from the two different time domains. The spaceship has to be going at a speed that is commensurate with its time dilation, without any foreshortening of space. It can be said that as viewed from Earth's fixed time domain, the spaceship's speed is 'infinitely convergent', that is to say, it approaches the speed of light on Earth 'c' - 300,000 kilometres a second, by an infinite process. On the other hand, as measured from the spaceship, there is a reciprocal arrangement. There in the spaceship, time dilation and speed are 'infinitely divergent', that is to say, capable of approaching infinity. For the relative calculation of kinetic energy, it is essential that there is no foreshortening of space.

(10) The postulate throws up several theoretical situations that are simply impossible because they are self contradictory. Let us invoke a thought experiment that is often used to support special relativity. It consists of a very long straight railway track, with a train travelling along it at a substantial proportion of the speed of light 'c'. If there is an observer on the train and another on the railway embankment, then what special relativity would have them see, as a result of the foreshortening of distance is impossible. For example, for the observer on the train, as he is not moving relative to it, all measurements inside the railway carriage remain unaltered. At the same time the observer on the embankment is required by special relativity, to see the train foreshorten in the line of its travel, while the breadth and height of the train remain unaltered. The fact that both observers are obliged to see all vertical coordinates unaltered, makes any foreshortening of the train impossible. To illustrate this point, imagine a measuring pole set vertically in the centre of the carriage. Then have two lamps set equidistant on the floor to shine on the two metre mark on it. Both observers must continue to see the lamps in the speeding train, illuminate the same two metre point. Yet this would not be possible if the carriage was to shorten in the line of travel, as stipulated in special relativity. For there to be a shortening of the carriage, the observer on the embankment, would need to see the light from the lamps illuminate a lower point on the pole. But it is clearly impossible from a commonsense point of view, for the same lamps to illuminate two different points on the pole at the same time. It is also precluded arithmetically, since the vertical coordinates are required by the equations of special relativity to remain unaltered for the observer on the embankment. To require the carriage to shorten, while keeping all vertical coordinates unaltered, means that special relativity is self contradicting.

(11) This self contradictory feature of special relativity is further exemplified when an observer on the fast moving train tries to measure the speed of the train. To illustrate this, let a measured mile be marked out on the embankment and let the length of the train when stationary also be a mile. When the train approaches at a high speed, the measured mile will become less than a mile, due to the foreshortening. The speed of the train will therefore appear slower than if the mile had remained unaltered. However, if there were two observers on the train one at the front and the other at the rear, they would each continue to measure the distance between them to be a mile. They could each press their stop-watches when they each pass the same marker on the embankment, say at the beginning of the measured mile. They would then be able to find the time taken for the train to pass the marker, which will be the time taken to travel a true mile. This would of course give a faster speed, and show the absurdity of there being two speeds, depending on which window you take your measurements from. In reality, the speed taken from the front window, is special relativities attempt to match the trains speed to the time domain of the embankment. On the other hand the speed taken from the side window, using the internal measurements of the train as well as its time dilation, is the speed as experienced by the train.

(12) The train can be used to give yet another example of the self contradictory nature of special relativity. It can be shown that it requires at least part of the train to be in two places at once. For example. let the position of the front and rear wheels of the train be marked on the track while it is stationary. Then reverse the train back to the start, so that it can be driven at a high constant speed toward the marks. We find that when the front wheels are over the appropriate mark, the observer at the front of the train will see the rear wheels behind the mark on the track, by reason of the notional foreshortening of the embankment. The observer on the track will, on the other hand, see the wheels ahead of the mark, because of the notional foreshortening of the train. So the rear of the train has to be in two places at once.