# Relativity Theory or Century Old Hoax

As you know, for the past 50-60 years there was no major breakthrough in physics mostly due to relativity and conservation of energy - physicists restricted themselves to those assumptions and keep hitting ubiquitous dead-ends. My previous post “Disproving Conservation of Energy” clarifies what is wrong with conservation of energy - let’s take a look at relativity.

Time delay has been suggested by Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, his equations along with Lorentz’ Factor shaped foundation of special relativity. YouTube movie provides simple and algebra-free explanation. In 1905 Einstein took Lorentz work further, suggested two postulates and published the General Relativity Theory.

- The laws of physics are the same for observers in all inertial reference frames. No one frame is preferred over any other.
- The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c = 299 792 458 m/s in all directions and in all inertial reference frames.

Take a second look at the clock from the movie. If it is stationary, the light that hits the mirror goes at 90° but inside the moving spaceship the angle is approaching 45°. Different distance for light to travel means different time. Consequently, Lorentz equations are meaningless. Shall I remind you that special and general relativity based on those equations?

The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance… How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!

Mark Twain

Now, let’s take a look at the reference frame equality. Einstein stated - "the laws of physics are the same for observers in all inertial reference frames. No one frame is preferred over any other" - It was another wrong assumption. There is no ultimate reference frame in the universe, instead every point has its own inertial reference frame, where one or all three axis go through the center of dominant gravitational field.

It sounds complicated? Look at the picture. Green disc is rotating; the red one is motionless relatively to the ground. In this system only green disc has centrifugal force (call it centripetal force if you wish). We can look at this system the other way - green disc as stationary (reference frame) red disc and ground rotating instead. If relativistic suggestion were correct we would have centrifugal force on the red disc and on the ground. Good luck to measure it on the red disc.

Think about Earth, Moon or even Mars - Their gravitational fields are dominant below, on the surface and certain distance in the space. For any point in those "spheres" we can determine true reference frame for any object using centers of those gravitational fields. For any electromagnetic waves including light, such reference frame will be dominant electromagnetic field. Usually electromagnetic and gravitational fields are stationary relatively to each other.

You probably heard that GPS provided a "proof" of relativity theory - it shows time delay and require constant synchronisation. We already discussed the "time delay" shown on the clock from YouTube. GPS uses atomic clocks their concept also involves electromagnetic waves and has the same flaw - they show lesser time with increasing speed. Contrary to relativistic conclusions, it is clock readings impede not time itself.

For example: Let’s go back to the YouTube movie situation and place two additional mechanical wristwatches, one on the Earth another on the spaceship. Both mechanical watches and stationary atomic clock will display the same time; only atomic clock on the SS will show "time delay". Ironically, a sand-clock becomes more accurate than an atomic one.