Shortest Debunking of Einstein's Relativity
“theory'' of relativity is so obviously wrong that no time and
effort should be wasted to discuss it, thus giving it legitimacy.
On the other hand, in view of the high extent of damage to the
interest, the removal of Einstein's “theory'' of relativity
from physics must be the top priority and a matter of highest responsibility
and urgency for every scientist worth his or her salt. It would be impossible
to carry out any other scientific research, knowing that the so-called
“big-science'' (high-energy physics, particle physics,
cosmology, string theories, dark matter, black holes,
Big Bang etc.) is occupied by bad science,
having as its fundamentals Einstein's “theory'' of relativity. Removal
from science of the non-physical Einstein's “theory'' of relativity will also
require removal from science of all the above “big-science'' areas as well
as deeply entrenched incorrect ideas about curvature of space, space-time and
anything else physically wrong that these arise from, such as Lorentz transformations.
In this way very substantial societal resources will be freed from being occupied by
junk science, entrenched on a staggering scale. Consequently, resources will be
redirected to truly productive scientific research, in compliance with reality.
One-liners are just enough to prove it invalid and the fun part and the
race is how to make the damning argument as short as possible, while using
its own devices and not even seeking for paradoxes outside of it, no matter
how legitimate those paradoxes might be to debunk that “theory''. Here
are several short ways to do it, each one quite enough in its own right
to overthrow it completely, accompanied by short study guides for those
willing to waste their time on the origins of something senseless but pushed
to undeserved prominence.
Spatially Coinciding Clocks Are Synchronous
has only one single value
in a given place
at a given moment
in a given system
independent of whether said time is measured by
a clock K at rest in that place
said time is measured by a moving clock k,
which happens to be in that place at that moment.
The above-stated absolute truth should be enough
to uderstand that the rate of time is the same in all systems and that
time-dilation (clocks running at different rate of time when moving) is
impossible in principle. Moving clocks cannot show that the time at a
given place is different from what it really is in that place at that moment. Thus, whatever
corrections there may be in GPS, these corrections cannot at all be due
to variations in time rate, falsely claimed by Einstein's “theory''
of relativity. Clearly, it is out of the question that these GPS corrections
be used as a proof for the validity of Einstein's “theory'' of
Furthermore, in view of the above conclusive argument, any claim whatsoever
for experimental confirmation of time-dilation must necessarily be considered
either an experimental error or deliberately misleading.
Physics must return to the only possible understanding of time that
has basis in reality; namely, that time in the Universe runs at the same
rate everywhere‒‒in a given system, as well as, in any other system,
moving with respect to that system.
Time is absolute.
The above invalidates at once Einstein's “theory''
of relativity in its entirety and mandates that it be removed from physics
Non-Physical Second Postulate
It should not be hard to understand that the second
postulate of Einstein's “theory'' of relativity is obviously
physically impossible because of the just stated absolute fact that two
spatially coinciding clocks are synchronous (a
fact recognized by Einstein himself, by the way, but not heeded by
him in building his “theory'').
Thus, all clocks in K are synchronous
at all moments (if you are not sure that this is the case click
Because, as emphasized above, all spatially coinciding clocks are synchronous,
then all clocks attached permanently to a moving rigid body k
(moving with respect to K) are also
synchronous with those already talked about synchronous clocks in K.
Note that there may be as many clocks permanently attached to the moving
rigid body k as one wishes. Since
every one of these permanently attached clocks individually is synchronous
with the synchronous clocks in K,
then these permanently attached clocks are synchronous among themselves
in K, as well. The permanently attached
clocks to the moving body k are also
synchronous among themselves in k
because these are exactly the same clocks under consideration. Motion
does not make a given clock moving in K
different from the same clock in its own system k
Let us repeat the above conclusion:
All clocks in the stationary system K
All clocks in the moving system k
are also synchronous, even if viewed from system with respect to which
they are moving.
Therefore, Einstein is wrong in concluding that synchronous clocks in
one system will be viewed as asynchronous from another system, moving
with respect to the first.
Simultaneity is absolute.
The above leads to nothing less than realizing that,
as already said, the second postulate
is physically impossible. Indeed, the time of flight of a light ray from
one clock to another clock in k and
then back, cannot be different, as Einstein derives for the clocks in
k because, as seen, all clocks in
k are synchronous. Make some effort
to understand the undeniable physical fact that the inequality of the
times of light ray flight derived by Einstein can only be true for synchronous
clocks, as the clocks in k are, if
the light has different velocities in the two direction. This obliterates
at once the second postulate.
Lorentz Transformations Destroy the Concept
Lorentz transformations represent an intact rigid
body in stationary system K as a disjointed
body in moving system k, with no two points
of that body existing at the same time.
By definition, length of the body in K
is x2 - x1 because both these points exist at time
t1 together. It is, however, impossible to speak about length
of that same body in k because the
coordinates ξ1 and ξ2, calculated by the
Lorentz transformations, do not even exist at the same time; as seen,
the corresponding times of their existence, τ1 and τ2,
Therefore, claiming that there might be length-contraction, as
Einstein's “theory'' of relativity does, is out of the question.
What length-contraction since the very concept of length is non-existent
after the application of the Lorentz transformations?
It is seen at once that Enstein's “theory''
of relativity derives
two completely different expressions
for one and the same law,
which refers to a given unique single body in a given single system.
Newton's second law is derived to be both
for one and the same unique electron in the given single system K.
The student, curious to learn the origins of such manipulation, which
was most brazenly passed for science, may want to follow this
link to a study guide or this link
to a study guide.
An analogy may be useful for those who fear formuli. The “theory'' presented
by Einstein is akin to a following ingenious “theory'':
Let us be given a male who is alive at all times.
Let us also be given that at the same time this same male be dead at all times.
Now, having postulated these two initial conditions, the great discoverer
and genius first conveniently remembers only one of these initial conditions
whereby it was postulated that the male is dead at all times (the genius,
being a true genius, deliberately forgets at this point that, according
to the other initial condition, the male is alive at all times). However,
if that is true; that is, if the given male is dead at all times, then
there is no living male. On the other hand, the genius reasons, according
to the initial conditions, there is a living person at all times and,
in general, a living person can be nothing other than either a male or
a female (intersex individuals excluded in this argument). However, it
was just concluded that there is no living male. Therefore, the discussed
living person must be a female! In other words, a seminal discovery is
made that a male from one perspective is a female from another. Sex is
Does a sane person need an explanation as to why the above “theory'' is
nothing else but outright gibberish?
Einstein's “Theory'' of Relativity
Has Nothing to Do With E = mc2
The above crucial aguments are quite enough to convince
the diligent student that it is out of the question to claim that Einstein's
“theory'' of relativity has anything to do with E = mc2.
If one still needs proof that Einstein's “theory'' of relativity
has nothing to do with E = mc2,
here is a purely formal demonstration. Thus, observe that Einstein confuses
the constant velocity v with which system
k is traveling with respect to K,
and which is a velocity, which is not a function of x,on the one hand,
and the velocity v, function of x, whose
first derivative constitutes part of the constant force Fx,
applied at time t = 0, on the other hand. Notice, that latter velocity;
namely, velocity v, would not even be a subject
of discussion, had the constant force not been applied; constant velocity
v being then the only velocity that one can
Constant velocity v leads to the constancy
of coefficient ,
allowing to factor it out of the integral, as seen in the gif below. Thus,
the most Einstein has achieved is to deriving a wrong formula for the
kinetic energy in K. Most importantly,
the wrong formula for the kinetic energy in K
has nothing to do whatsoever with deriving E = mc2,
clearly demonstrating that Einstein has nothing to do with E = mc2
but his “theory'' cannot even derive that so much celebratedly ascribed
to Einstein mass-energy relationship.
E = mc2
is inherent in classical physics.
Recurrent Flaw in Thinking Seen in Another Einstein
Derivation, Unrelated to Einstein's “Theory'' of Relativity
It turns out, astonishing as it may sound, that the
disregard of logic and of elementary absolute truths, such as the uniqueness
of a given body and the laws that govern it in a given system, is not
accidental only regarding Einstein's “theory'' of relativity.
The careful student will undoubtedly find with great amazement, that the
same defective thinking, in defiance of inevitable absolute truths involving
uniqueness, is applied in another, unrelated, study by the same author:
In the text shown above, we see an equilibrium equation, corresponding
to lower temperature T1
On the other hand, the same equilibrium equation appropriates the following
form at higher temperature T2:
And here is the blatant error. Einstein's substitution of pn,
derived from an equation, corresponding to higher temperature T2, into the
equation, corresponding to the lower temperature T1, is clearly unacceptable,
despite the fact that the result resembles Planck's radiation law. At
a given temperature, a given equilibrium can only be expressed by one
single equation and not by two different equations, as Einstein incorrectly
foists on us.
Thus, the student must be instructed in as plain language as possible,
that physics is not only burdened with the bad science of Einstein's “theory''
of relativity, which mandates prompt removal in its entirety, including
its various applications such as cosmology, string theories, participation
in electrodynamics, particle physics and so on, but also lacks a correct
theory of lasers. A correct theory of lasers must not have in its basis
senselessness, passed as derivation, such as that shown above. Unfortunately,
the above-shown senselessness, is the currently used starting point to explain laser
Such low quality thinking is not the thinking of a genius, which is the
least conclusion that can be made from the above. The main conclusion
is that Einstein's
“theory of relativity must be removed from science.
E = mc2 in Ampere's Law