Are Relativity theories science or science fiction?
|
I have studied the claims of the theories of Relativity and the results show the theories are false. Hello : The problem is you don't understand the distinction between an ordinary theory and a scientific theory.. In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. excon I strongly think that the supporters of Relativity theories are the ones who never understood what a theory of science is about. To start, a theory of science is an attempt to explain a phenomenon as a consequence of a former phenomenon. Like a theory made by a police investigator, which is to explain a crime as a consequence of the victim resisting an assault, in science a theory follows the same procedure. The primeval source or phenomenon must be a physical mean, this is to say, an object, a body, energy, a force, etc. You just can't invent a theory of science from your own imagination. Relativity theory is based on a conventional idea that time flows, but time doesn't exist physically. In other words, Relativity theories and several theories of the past based on a flowing time are all of them discarded by reality. Having that Relativity theories -according to you- have passed tests and provide substantiated explanations as required by science, then come back with one explanation that is missing here. The required from you is to explain the mechanism, the step by step explanation of how time dilates. This is to say, how a fast object causes such dilation of time. What happens right there. How the fast object is capable to distort time. Explain it. Best will be if you provide graphics, so your explanation can be better understood. As far as I know, no one has explained such an "imaginary" phenomenon of time dilation. Feel free to search as much as you want online, journals of science, you name it. Remember that providing that explanation will require the observation of the event and show step by step how it happens. Having that Relativity theories -according to you- have passed tests Hello l: I have a theory about English.. If you're gonna quote somebody, the words oughta be in the text you got it from. Fact is, you made up what I said out of whole cloth.. I was just trying to explain what science IS to a science denier who also doesn't read very well. Didn't work, of course. excon Another consequence of Relativity theories found as fiction is that black holes do not exist as well. Today there is an immense propaganda saying that huge black holes have been detected even in our galaxy. The "fake news" media has went that far that an assumed picture of a black hole was released to the masses not long ago (?). A piece of paper is claiming that a collapsed star compresses so hard that its particles concentrate with such a force that ends as a strong dense body. This assumed dense body is capable of pull back its own light and and impede its escape. This incredible new celestial body is also capable to cause the pulling of everything around, including "space", "stars", "planets" and old propaganda included the pulling of "time". But, all of that is just fiction. A star 100 times the size of the sun -following the calculations made on its collapsing according to the paper- will end with a size no greater than 3 times the earth's diameter. Such a small black hole in physical reality won't be capable to attract even flies, come on... lets be serious here, black holes is not science but also fiction. The inventors of the black holes phenomenon didn't know what they were talking about, they were experts in Relativity theories but complete ignorant in physics and science in general. A collapse star of such a category and size will become simply a dead body in space, and will be subjected to the force of gravity of any star passing by close to it. Basic physics debunks Relativity and its assumed consequences. The main problem with Special Relativity is that there is no reason for it to exist. The declared goal was to resolve the contradiction between Electromagnetism and classical mechanics reference frame transformation: x' = x - Vt t' = t Non-invariance of Maxwell's equations would mean there's an absolute reference frame, which would be a strange and unlikely phenomena. While it is in fact true that Maxwell's equations are not invariant with respect to the standard version of that transformation, they are invariant with respect to the modified version where the fields are also transformed, in a linear way. What's more important, the classical electrodynamics motion law is also invariant with respect to the same transformation. So, there was no contradiction in the first place. |
