1.0   How flat is flat?

    Let’s first make absolutely clear that Einstein length contraction is just a thought experiment. No one has ever run a physical
    experiment to verify his specific length contraction claim simply because such a test is impossible to run. It is impossible to
    run not because we cannot travel anywhere near the speed of light, but because, if we did, the observers would be too far away
    from the traveler after a few seconds to substantiate Einstein’s claim! This ‘local’ issue is pertinent because relativists stage
    length contraction in a relatively flat, gravity-free universe, which in the religion of General Relativity means ‘a small region of
    space.’ Relativists go out of their way to ensure you understood this ‘local’ feature of their theory:

    “ Special relativity is only accurate when gravitational effects are negligible or very
        weak, otherwise it must be replaced by general relativity.” [1]

    Actually, this statement is technically inaccurate, and it is crucial to underscore the difference. SR is valid only in a perfectly flat,
    gravity-free universe and not at all in a scenario that is nearly flat.

    “ Special relativity is ‘special,’ because it is a special case of GR, namely that there
        are no gravitational fields or accelerations, and that space is flat and static.” [2]

    “ SR is valid only in flat Lorentz manifolds topologically equivalent to R4.” [3]

    Relativists gloss over this seemingly trivial semantic issue, meaning that they have no clue as to how important it is. It is not
    the same thing for your table to approach flatness as it is for it to be perfectly flat. It is not the same for the Universe to be a
    humongous ball that you 'measure' to be flat in your vicinity as it is for the Universe to actually look like a washboard
    (Fig. 1 vs.  Fig. 2).
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Flatland is not all it was
cracked up to be. I shouldn't
have come here. My ruler
shrunk. My clock is running
slow. The next thing I'll hear is
that my twin brother is older
than me!
SR is flat; GR is curved;
the real world is neither

    The mathematicians get these misconceived ideas from indulging in too much math talk, specifically the concept of a limit.
    They routinely analyze limits and what happens at a limit. But what happens near a boundary is not what happens exactly
    at the boundary. One is an extrapolation, a deduction. The other is the real thing.

    Therefore, before we start our analysis, we must place Special Relativity in its proper context: it has nothing to do with the
    real world simply because there is no place in the Universe free of space-time’s pervasive curvature. According to GR,
    even the tiny region occupied by a quark is bent out of shape:

    " The presence of matter changes the geometry of spacetime, this (curved) geometry
       being interpreted as gravity." [4]

    And according to relativity, space is warped not because it truly is physically warped but because the mathematician
    perceives it to be warped:

    “An infinitesimal piece of spacetime ‘looks flat’.” [5]

    So perception is yet another can of worms. Like Charismatic Christians, Relativists can't live without testimonials. Kill the
    witness and Mathematical Physics is dead!

    The bottom line is that the approximations to flatness of relativity (as well as the perceptions of observers) have nothing to
    do with the real world. This is a black and white issue. Either something is flat or it is curved. A standalone object is flat or
    curved on its own before the mathematician pulls out his measuring tape. Either there is gravity and curvature or there isn’t.
    The idiot of Mathematics wants you to believe that because the thing is almost flat (or looks flat to him), it is flat. If Special
    Relativity requires absolute flatness to work, it is divorced from and should not be advertised as depicting reality. Special
    Relativity is an oxymoron, a theory designed to explain the workings of the real universe based on admittedly impossible
    and unreal assumptions.


    2.0   How close is close?

    A second shortcoming is that relativists have yet to define what they mean by local. How far should a boy travel in his
    spaceship before gravity affects the Lorentz equation if SR assumes a gravity-free universe?

    The answer again is the same: the boy can travel as far as he wants because the Lorentz formula makes no provisions for
    boundaries. SR has to do with mathematical limits and not with Physics. The mathematician tackles the problem by
    assuming that space is a physical object, specifically a ball     (Fig. 2). Somehow he manages to reconcile this sphere
    with a washboard (Fig. 1). I am too ignorant to understand this. My intelligence simply doesn't reach that far. Then he
    looks at a portion of the surface of the ball, what is known as an arc; the greater the ball, the flatter the arc (Fig. 2). So he
    asks: ‘What happens at the limit where the arc (a side of the ball) changes into a straight line.’ ('Gee! I don't know, Einstein!
    Maybe the ball turned into a box!). He forgets that if the arc turns into a line it is no longer an arc, not to mention that his
    sphere turned into a cube or into a pancake. Thus, the idiot of SR assumes that the entire Universe is flat, cubic, and
    gravity free. These assumptions are absolutely ludicrous. But they're the only ones that make Special Relativity work.
    So how is it that the lamebrains claim that Special Relativity has been confirmed and never falsified if these assumptions
    are not found anywhere in the Universe?

    If these statements offend relativists, they are welcome to define ‘local’ unambiguously. If they’re successful, I recommend
    next that they include this factor in their equation so that the ET does not have to make ‘flatness’ an assumption.
Fig. 2   Solid-land
Fig. 1   Flatland
    ... as it is for the Universe to
    approach flatness.
Well shiver me timbers,
Steve! The Earth is flat after
all! This absolutely falsifies
General Relativity!
It is not the same for the Universe
to be perfectly flat...


    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008