Re: List of Critics of Relativity

Le 12/01/2025 à 02:37, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :

Add a few hundred more from this 2019 post, with 17,000+ replies.
  What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories
of Relativity?

The theory of relativity is unfortunately full of fraud and stupidity, but the problem is more human than scientific.
If it were simply scientific, we could sit down at a stable and discuss what works and what doesn't, what is coherent and what is not.
There are things that are very true and very coherent, experimentally proven and theoretically logical (although this often lacks precise definition from the very beginning).
But there are also huge maggots, like the Langevin paradox that we try to explain by the Doppler effect but this is only pushing the problem back to apparent speeds that are no longer reciprocal, which is absurd.
If there is no absolute frame of reference, the three relativistic speeds described by Dr. Hachel must remain reciprocal.
If two petanque balls approach each other at Vo=0.8c, which gives Vr=(4/3)c and Vapp=4c, which no one in the world can dispute if we understand what we are talking about because it is so simple, the speeds measured by the two balls must be reciprocal, otherwise it is absurd. Otherwise, it is reintroducing absolute space and time, which is false and off topic in SR. Now, in the Langevin, if we do not practice the bases given by Doctor Hachel (that's me) and if we continue to think that my reflections for forty years are the reflections of an idiot, we realize that neither Poincaré, nor Lorentz, nor Einstein saw the immense problem generated by a notion of contraction of distances such as D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²) and where the apparent speeds can no longer be reciprocal if we do not use the right geometry.
Let D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c). Which implies an extraordinary dilation of the spatial metric, and not a simple contraction.
We then have, taking the well-known example Vo=0.8c, D=12al, Vapp=4c.
It comes immediately if you understand me well (but you have to make an effort of faith, because it is not easy to believe a non-physicist, and an effort of intellectual logic) that D'=36al (it is hard to swallow, but space is such a mollusk of reference).
We then have the travel time of Stella's return, for example, which becomes T=D'/Vapp or T=36al/4c=9 years of proper time.
And 4c is indeed the apparent speed of approach of the earth in Stella's frame of reference if we set Vo=0.8c.
It is these misunderstandings that cause all these frauds, these arrogances, these errors, these paradoxes and these obvious contradictions.
It is obviously very unfortunate to see that the problem remains whole, and that we deny, for the pleasure of denying, that there are some maggots not in the bases, but in the developments.
For those who can read French, I am writing a very simple little pdf that will take up ALL the current knowledge
of RR, correcting all the small conceptual errors and removing all the paradoxes that do not belong there (Langevin paradox, Andromeda paradox, Ehrenfest paradox).
The first pages are here:
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?JyaYee5DviZ2aUEbEp9BTWKSlBI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
R.H. <https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=JyaYee5DviZ2aUEbEp9BTWKSlBI@jntp>