Challenging the Unchallengeable
Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity
by
Book Cover & Preview Text
Evidence Refuting the Claims of Special Relativity
From Special Relativity’s Length Contraction
Experiment two will be conducted in accord with the claims of special relativity and will continue with uniform motion between spaceship X and spaceship Y at a speed of .968c as in experiment one.
However, unlike experiment one, there is no special room in spaceship X through which ropes are pulled. But there is a square box in spaceship X with a height, width, and length of 4 feet with respect the occupants of spaceship X. Concerning the four sides of the box, the front side and the back side are vertical to the length of spaceship X and any motion of spaceship X. The other two sides are parallel to the length of the spaceship and to any motion of the spaceship.
As shown in experiment one, the .968c speed of spaceship X with respect to the spaceship Y observers and the claims of special relativity cause the length of spaceship X and every length in spaceship X that is parallel to the spaceship’s motion to contract by a factor of .25 from what that length would be without this motion. Thus, we return to the box in spaceship X that has a height, width, and length of 4 feet with respect the occupants of spaceship X.
With respect to the observers in spaceship Y, the box continues to have a width of 4 feet and height of 4 feet because the width and height of the box are not parallel to the motion spaceship X. However, the 4 foot length of the box is parallel to the motion of spaceship X and, hence, this length is contracted by a factor of .25 to a length of one foot with respect to the spaceship Y observers. Hence, with respect to the spaceship Y observers, the box has a height that is four times greater than its length.
Thus, during the .968c motion between the spaceship X and spaceship Y, there is a single box in spaceship X. The claim then comes from special relativity through the functioning of its principles is that, with respect to the spaceship X occupants, this single box has a height that is the same as its length and that there is no box in the spaceship with a height that is 4 times greater than its length. It is also claimed by special relativity that, with respect to the spaceship Y observers, this single box in the spaceship has a height that is four time greater than its length and that there is no box in the spaceship with a height that is the same as its length. But can this claim of special relativity be factual? In what follows, this claim will be tested.
While there is motion between spaceship X and spaceship Y at speed of .968c, an occupant of spaceship X stands midway between the front and back of the box and a few feet away from the box. She proceeds to take a picture of the box with her camera. Then, when she and the other occupants of spaceship X physically have the picture in their hands, they see on this picture the image of a box with a height that is the same as its length. And, what the spaceship occupants see on the picture is in complete accord with what is claimed by special relativity.
After the occupants of spaceship X physically held and looked at the picture, they send the picture to spaceship Y by email. It is then the observers in spaceship Y that physically have the picture in their hands and, in viewing it, they see on the picture the image of a box with a height and length that are the same. The image of the box that the occupants of spaceship X saw on the picture when they emailed the picture to the spaceship Y observers must be the image of the box that the spaceship Y observers see on the picture when the emailed picture arrives at the spaceship Y. Hence, even as the occupants of spaceship X saw on this picture a box with a height and length that are the same, the occupants of spaceship Y must also see on this picture a box with a height and length that are the same.
Furthermore, the picture of the box that the spaceship Y observers are physically seeing was taken by a camera in the spaceship. And since a camera can only take a picture of what is in front of it, it must be that in front of this camera in spaceship X is a box with a height that is the same as its length. Hence, by the spaceship Y observers physically seeing a picture taken by this camera, the picture is showing them that the box in front of the camera has a height that is the same as its length.
Thus, the above claim by special relativity that there is no box in spaceship X with a height that is the same as its length with respect to the spaceship Y observers is shown to be erroneous. And, by making this erroneous assertion, the claims of special relativity are again revealing their lack of validity.
Formats
Book Details
About the Book
John D. Frey leads readers on a fascinating journey in this book that seeks to prove that Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity is all wrong.
He begins by sharing an overview of special relativity, including its history, principles, and how these principles bring about time dilation and length contraction.
The author examines six experiments that show that the theory’s claims and principles can disqualify themselves by producing impossible, opposing results. He also explains how experiments that supposedly have verified special relativity and its claims actually help prove that the theory is flawed.
Behind this book was over 10 years of research by the author concerning every aspect of special relativity. In addition, the author consulted with over 30 professors of physics concerning his ideas and experiments and their feedback was extremely important in the creation of this book.
Written in everyday, nontechnical language, the book will make sense to those without a background in physics. No matter what you do for a living, you can participate in a vital discussion about our universe and join the author in Challenging the Unchallengeable.
About the Author
John D. Frey has spent more than ten years researching every aspect of special relativity. In writing this book, he contacted more than thirty professors of physics who reviewed his ideas, approaches, and experiments. Their feedback led to spirited dialog and—at times—led him to become even more certain of what he was proposing.