**Example 1**

Please recall from the Introduction that, I do NOT accept the claim that light speed is independent of the observer. This is an unproven, questionable and irrational postulate. I DO agree that light speed is a fairly constant.

Additionally, I totally reject the concept that one cannot know if he is moving in relation to another frame. Ultimately, for all practical purposes we do know if we are moving. For example, we do in fact know that the Milky Way is moving, yet it perhaps "thinks" it is stationary. If you are going to say that one observer does not know that he is actually moving, then you maybe should phone him and give him all the facts. Then he won't be making stupid claims and coming up with half baked theories based on half of the facts.

These postulates of Einstein are unproven. one just has to accept them, and move on to the rest of his hypothesis. They base this trust in these postulates on the claim that SR has been tested and never proven wrong. But this is an incorrect claim. It's also a poor conclusion based on questionaable evidence. All "proofs" offered have far better explanations from classic physics than from SR. It is misleading to state that SR is the ONLY conclusion one can draw from such experimental evidence. In any case, in science one can never actually "prove" anything conclusively. Scientists should be saying that there a possibility that SR is wrong, yet they insist that Einstein's theories alone are invincible and above question. This is the attiitude of religious dogma.

Lets take a step back from Light speed for a while, and consider something closer to speeds we can experience.

Sound travels in our atmosphere around 330~340 meters a second as a general rule. It's quite reliable.

A continuous sound, say a car engine, will change pitch as the car approaches and departs a person listening on the side of the road. But, a single pulse of sound, like an engine backfire, or a gunshot coming from the car will not change in pitch, as there is not enough duration of the wavelength to experience compression or expansion of the sound.

However, regardless of whether the sound is compressed or expanded, (higher or lower pitch) the gunshot sound will still leave the car source at its maximum speed of say 330 ~ 340meters per second. It cannot go any faster. The speed of sound, like light speed, is fairly constant. Still not sure about this? Imagine I have a archery bow, the arrow can go about 100 mps. Sound goes at 340mps. Do you really think that if I fix a fire cracker to the end of the arrow, and fire it off, that when the firework explodes, the sound will now be going at 440mps? Really? Of course not. Sound speed is a reliable constant that can't be exceeded by sound speed.. its 340... regardless of the speed of the observer or the sound source. Likewise, if you travelled at say, 300mps away from a sound source, you might initially measure the sound at 40mps, just a bit faster that you. But then because you have a brain, you can do some mental arithimetic and add your own speed to get the result 300+40 = 340mps for the speed that the sound is travelling.

In human experience and therefore under easily testable conditions, a very fast vehicle, say an airplane, travelling at 200 meters per second, could fire a gun that we can use as a real test of the laws of Physics. It’s something we can easily experience or imagine in our thought experiment. (light speed, not so much)

We know that under these circumstances, gun fire from a moving airplane is not altered in pitch, and reaches a stationary observer at 340meters per second. The most important statement is that sound travels at its maximum or 340 meters per second, and is measured travelling at its maximum speed even if the source of the sound is a moving vehicle. (or even if the pitch changes, the sound still will travel at the speed of sound, 340mps)

This is exactly the same statement that is made regarding the speed of light.

Light speed is measured travelling at its maximum regardless of the speed of the source, or the speed of the observer. Light just cannot go any faster, nor can sound. They both always travel at their maximum.

Light speed is therefore a fixed constant, and likewise so too is the speed of sound.

Unlike light speed, the speed of sound can be broken, but it’s not easy. However, in this discussion we are not interested in breaking the speed of sound.

The speed of sound is a CONSTANT. We will call this constant “s” in this discussion.

And we already know that the speed of light is a constant, called “c”.

Einstein developed a theory based on the speed of light, called Special relativity.

To explain the mechanism, and to provide background in order to develop the mathematical equation, he imagined a train carriage moving to the right, past a stationary observer on a station. Inside the carriage, a second observer watches a pulse of light move between the source on the floor up to a mirror on the ceiling and back down, vertically.

Einstein called this apparatus a light clock. Light travels at a fixed speed at all times, for all observers, stationery or not.

The carriage observer just needs to measure the height of the carriage to calculate the distance the light pulse would take. But to the stationary observer, as the carriage moved in front of him, he would see that the pulse of light would take an angled path in order to reach the ceiling mirror, as the ceiling mirror would have moved some distance to the right before the light pulse arrived. (the train would have to be moving very fast)

So the observer in the rocket/train measures the distance from floor to ceiling as the path travelled by the light, but the stationary guy outside measures an angled path for the light pulse, meaning that the light pulse must travel further.

**However because light could not actually go faster than light speed, and we know that the light did in fact arrive at the ceiling at the same instant for both observers, then logically, time must have changed for one or both observers.**

This sounds mad, but this is the core of Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity, and has been elevated to the status of unassailable Dogma by the scientific community. You cannot study science unless you are willing to agree with Einstein’s relativity. Scientist who have challenged Relativity end up losing their academic career.

Yet Relativity is really a serious theory, at the core of modern science, math, Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology and Particle Physics, as well as Quantum Physics.

Now I will show why it’s wrong.

So to recap, light speed is a constant, likewise sound speed.

Physicists derive an equation called the Lorentz transformation from the concept of the “light clock” in a moving carriage as we discussed above.

The Lorentz equation in plain English is Stationary observers time= “moving observers time, divided by the square root of 1, minus the square of the velocity of the carriage divided by the square of the velocity of light.”

“ t' “ is the time for the stationery observer and “t” is the time on the moving carriage.

Physicists , mathematicians and students have checked this equation millions of times, they are happy with it.

The Math is correct, but they jumped into the math before they have a sensable hypothesis. Here is the problem:

Because the Lorentz equation represents the relationship between two observers, one considered stationary, the other moving, and the result is regarding TIME, we can correctly say that the part light plays in this equation is not the main focus.

What is important is the RATIO between light speed and the speed of the carriage. It’s only concerned with the RATIO. Once you have the ratio, then the result is all about TIME differences.

The ratio is always between the speed of the observer, divided by the constant “c” which is light speed.

Foe example, any ratio such as 2:1 can be derived many different ways, using different values. What is important is not what numbers you used, but the final ratio. For instance, 12 apples for 6 people is 2:1. 50 apples for 25 people is still 2:1.

I difficult to really imagine just how fast the speed of light is, but I can experience the speed of sound. Sound speed is something I can relate to easily.

We know that like light speed, the speed of sound is also a constant.

As a constant, it will be a perfect dominator in our Special Relativity equation that requires a RATIO.

So we can rerun Einstein's train carriage experiment, and replace the “light clock” with a “sound clock”.

Everything in the experiment is exactly the same, but now we pretend that we can observe or actually watch a “pulse of sound” as we previously imagined we could watch a “photon of light.”

The paths for the sound pulse are identical to the paths for the light clock and the observers both report exactly the same effects.

Carriage observer says the path is only vertical, the stationary observer says the path is angled, so the distance is further.

Everything is identical, just the constant “c” is now the constant “s”.

**Einstein’s theory states that because “c is constant, then time must change”. This is the core of the argument.**

Something must be flexible and we know that light speed is not, so it must be time that will give in.

**Likewise it’s also perfectly true to claim that “s" is constant, so then time must change”**

Light can’t get to the ceiling any faster, even though it has to travel further, so too sound can’t get to the ceiling any quicker even though it travels further.

**Yet the light pulse arrives at the ceiling at the same time for both observers despite having taken different length paths to get there. The exact same results will be reported by the observers with sound clocks.**

I’ve stressed this many times so you will not forget its importance. A light clock is absolutely no different than a sound clock or any other clock, All measure the elapsed time, just maybe in finer increments. An atomic clock counts seconds just like your wrist watch, it just breaks the seconds up into smaller increments and is more accurate. So we are totally justified in this experiment to exchange a light clock with another type of clock that is easier to procure. Also, as it is practically impossible to measure the time it takes for light to go 2 meters compared to 5 meters, it may be advisable to use sound which allows us to actually measure the difference.

Therefore we can use the Lorentz transformation equation for calculating “time dilation” if we just swap in the constant “s” in place of the constant “c”. It will make no difference according to the theory.

We must remember that the theory relies on a ratio, and it relies on the constancy of a known speed.

**They are using light speed as the constant, a benchmark for comparative purposes. We are using sound speed as the constant, the benchmark for comparison. Nothing in the Lorentz equation needs to change just because we have a different clock.**

Therefore we have two available constants we can apply, one is light “c” but the other is certainly the constant “s”.

So let’s work through a real world example to show why Einstein’s Special Relativity is totally wrong.

Using a light clock, the Lorentz equation that shows the ratio of stationary time to moving time, when the moving observer is in an airplane travelling at 200meters per second, the time distortion is practically nothing.

This is simply because the speed dominator is 300000000 (light speed in meters per second) and the numerator (the airplanes speed) is only 200 meters per second. You have to travel almost at light speed to notice real big differences in time.

But in the sound clock experiment we apply the math, use the “proven” equation with accurate values from our sound clock, and suddenly the time difference between the man on the ground and the person flying overhead is HUGE!

For every minute, (60 seconds) that the person on the plane counts, the person on the ground counts 74 seconds!

**You need to think about this for a few moments.**

There is a well known example of Special Relativity, where identical twins compare their ages. One twin stays on Earth the other twin goes on a space flight at near light speed. The earth twin ages much faster than the space twin.

This means that if Einstein’s theory is true, if a twin hopped on a commercial jet carrying a “sound clock”, and went on a 1000 kilometer trip, the twin on the earth would age 23 minutes more than his flying twin. And the flying twin was only going on a short flight from Sydney to Brisbane! If it was a world trip, the twin on earth would age almost 5 hours more than his twin on the plane. Clearly this never happens. Nor does time change for Einstein.

The key point with the Lorentz Transformation Equation is that it is simply stating that a single event, the motion of a pulse of light (which we all know can only travel at a fixed speed), has travelled a different distance for each observer. This is absolutely an equally true statement if we employ a light clock, or a sound clock. The only reason to use a light clock is because Einstein and the other scientists were fascinated with the speed of light in the 1900’s. But because the exact same effect will be seen when we use the sound clock, we can rightfully use that speed (340mps) throughout the Lorentz equation instead of the speed of light. The equation should still work. We are using the same sound clock for both observers so we are not cheating here.

But the results are absolutely incorrect. Now we can see that using the speed of light is useful because the ratio between any speed we can achieve in earth is a miniscule fraction of light speed, so we can’t really measure any differences. (atomic clocks tests are not a clear cut as they make out, every atomic clock is slightly different than the next, they need periodic adjustment, and as they count in such small increments, how can we know that we can use them as stopwatches? Even the electric pulse sent to two atomic clocks to get the exact time, would not necessarily reach each clock in the same time, (the flow of electricity takes time, and any capacitor, resistor or coil has slightly different values, and those values change. )

**If for some inexplicable reason a mathematician claims that the Lorentz equation is only for light, then he needs to show why that is the case. He needs to provide justification why we must only measure time with a “light clock”, which
don’t actually exist. Why measuring time with a conventional clock is inapplicable. **

The actual logic behind the equation is identical for any object that we know that has a fixed, constant speed. So rationally, any of these “standards” should yield the same results.

So even if we should agree Lorentz equation is only for light clocks, then a new equation would be necessary for “sound clocks”, (which it does not) but anyway… then before you get to do any math, one can see that the ratio between the speed of the airplane (200mps) is not too different than the speed of sound, (340mps) so unlike Einstein’s Light clock relativity, which conveniently has an “impossible to imagine” ratio of 1: to some incredibly huge number. This simply means that we observe no change in time till we get that ratio down by moving at near the speed of light. How convenient, as we can’t really test this theory. (it has been tested, but the conclusions are able to be criticized)

**So our experiment using sound clocks is as valid as when we use a light clock.**

Imagine if we had a very different way to measure time. I have a trained snail that always slithers at the exact same velocity invariably. There is absolutely no reason why we can’t measure the passing of time with this “snail clock.” The Lorentz equation holds true and is exactly the same for any constant velocity object. A photon, a sound, a snail. But for a snail, the time dilation would be phenomenal. A twin carrying a snail clock, going on a one hour flight, would cause his stationary twin to age many years!

Also, if Lorentz Equation is only for light clocks, we will need a new equation for ‘sound clocks”, then we will need another one for “snail clocks”, another for “grandfather clocks’, another for Seiko’s, another for Casio clocks and one for sundials.

I have to add something else in here, as people are still confused. My snail is sliming along on his one meter ruler. Pretend that this ruler contains exactly 10 quad-trillion atoms along its length. You have an identical ruler, same number of atoms long. As my snail is sliming along, you fly past at speed, and you measure the snails progress with your ruler. You can only get the exact same measurement as I do. Either the snails frame of reference is moving or yours is, it does not matter, Being ignorant, or claiming that you are not moving, can not alter the fact that you actually are. So realising that one frame is moving, you will take that fact into consideration, and using Newtonian or Galilean Physics, you will make the calculations, and derrive the exact same speed for the snail as I do. This principal is called "Rational Physics" and it is diametrically opposed to "Relativity Physics".

If the postulate of Einstein regarding light speed remaining the same regardless of the observer is rejected, then all of a sudden, we get rid of all the irrationality of modern Physics, such as Time, distance and mass changing just because someone goes fast, and then we also can drop the other irrational "discoveries' of Physics, that hang on Special or General Relativity, such as Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, expanding Universe, Big Bang, Quantum Physics. These weird concepts actually have no real evidence, as all of the mathematics used to support these theories is based on Relativity, which of course is wrong.

Get rid of the error of Relativity and science can get back on track to making real discoveries. All of the claims such as Quantum Computers and their qbits, is just babble. There is no such thing as a qbit, or the superposition. No quantum entanglement, no "spooky action at a distance", and No they have not found anything in some quark. Particle Physics is a joke. Shrodinger never had a cat. There is no spoon.

Please note that both observers in my thought experiment are using the same time keeping device, and the speeds are subsonic, so Time dilations even if it was true, is practically non-existent, therefore the same reasoning that Lorentz applies to his light clock experiment, must also be applicable to the stationary and moving observers in my scenario. The only change made is the clock type.

*I have applied formula of Lorentz correctly only using different clock measuring devices. The theory of Lorentz must still be applicable regardles of the type of measuring device we have handy. I dont own a light clock.*

Maybe I need to point out that the correctness of the Lorentz transformation equation is crucial for Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory.

This proves that SR cannot be correct because the Lorentz Transformation Equation yields different results depending on what time measuring device we use. In a correct equation derrived from a sound theory, the choice of the type of measuring device used will never effect the outcome.

With Special Relativity, if we make measurements with different types of clock, we get a different results! Thats not useful to Physics.