WHY THE RELATIVITY THEORY IS FALSE
Is v=zc the real velocity of the object on which we have measured z (redshift)?
The following point is fundamental: the time it takes for information to travel from one point to another at velocity c modifies the reality of that information.
For instance, it is known that the velocity at which an object was travelling when it passed through a certain point in the universe is different from the velocity that we now measure in its observable image at that same point. (Munarriz effect) Verifying this could not be simpler. Assuming that an object is approaching our observatory, the real object is closer than the observable image that we receive of it. As the real object and image will reach us together, this means that the observable image has come at a higher velocity. The opposite is true when the object moves away from us; the velocity of the real object is greater than the velocity we observe of its image because the real object is always farther away, which indicates that its velocity is greater.
Now we ask the following: When we measure the value of z, the redshift of any object, what is it that are we measuring? The redshift of the real object when it passed through a certain point, or the redshift of the observable object that we now see at that point? Obviously the redshift of the observable object, as the only thing we can see, and measure, of the real object is on its observable counterpart.
The problem is that, at present, all measurements made on the observable object are attributed to the real object, which means that, in all observatories, there are thousands of data erroneously recorded as real data that pertain to the observable object.
Therefore, if the value of z is known, the equation v=zc gives us the observable velocity v, and on the basis of this the real velocity V should be calculated, which is quite simple. The equation is indicated below, together with the equation of the real time T as a function of observable time t, for the case in which the observer is at rest and the object is moving away. I make this distinction because the equation varies if the object is approaching, as it also does when the object is at rest and it is the observer who is moving away or approaching:
V = cv/(c-v) = zc/(1-z) T = t(c-v)/c = t(1-z) (1)
The difference between real time and observable time helps to explain some eccentric behaviours of QSOs, such as changes in magnitude, temperature, etc., that are observed in a period of just a few hours when, in fact, years of real time have elapsed.
This phenomenon is especially interesting for objects with a value of z > 1, since in these cases, as we can see from the preceding equations, the direction of the real speed is the opposite of the observable velocity. And the same is true of the real time, whose direction is the opposite of the observable time. In other words, we observe QSOs with a value of z>1 moving away from us, while the real object is coming towards our observatory. On the other hand, the observable object is seen in inverted time travelling towards its origin. This allows us to predict that some day they will reproduce the Big Bang in inverted time.
Main Drawback of this Correction.
The major drawback of this correction is that Relativity has never anticipated this situation, so that there are cases in which a real speed less than c is observed with a z>1, i.e. a velocity greater than the velocity of light, which makes one question its veracity.
To illustrate this situation, I propose the following example:
An object located at a distance of one light-year from our observatory is approaching us at a velocity near to but less than the velocity of light. This means that it takes 366 days to arrive, i.e. one day more than light. The observer, equipped with a telescope, finds that the object leaves the departure point when the real object has been travelling for 365 days, i.e. the time it takes light to transmit the information that the object has departed. On tracking the object’s journey, we see that it completes the journey towards us in one day, since at the end of day 366 the observable object arrives together with the real object. Thus we observe that it has travelled at a speed of 365c.
If an explosion occurs in the real object every month, we will observe an explosion every two hours. The same is true of the frequency of its radiations; the blueshift will correspond to the speed of 365c.
Finally, if at the departure point there were a lantern pointed towards the observer, when the switch is turned on it would take 365 days to light up the observer’s surroundings. But the observer will see at that very instant that the lantern has been turned on. Therefore he sees the lantern being turned on and his surroundings being illuminated at the same time and, since zero time has elapsed, the velocity at which we have observed the light travelling is infinite. On the contrary, if the lantern were beside us, it would take two years to light up its previous position as of the moment the switch is turned on, which means that the observed velocity of light in this case would be c/2.
In short, we observe velocities of objects greater than c, and the speed of light different from c, which frontally contradicts the relativist principle of constancy.
The example of the light, which we observe travelling at different velocities depending on whether it is coming towards or moving away from us, reveals another deformation of reality because of the time information needs to travel from one point to another, and that is that an observed value not only differs from the real value but also, depending on whether it approaches or moves away from the observer, the observed values differ from one another.
To verify this, let us assume that the object that took 366 days to reach our observatory now departs from where we are located and returns to its departure point for its journey towards us. For us, it will not arrive until after 366+365 days, since it really takes 366 days and it takes 365 days for the light to inform us that it has arrived; the sum of the two results in a time of 731 days and, since the space covered is 365c, the speed has been 365c/731.
If in the real frame of reference there is gravitation, the acceleration of which is a , in the approaching frame of reference an acceleration much higher than the real acceleration will be observed, whereas an acceleration much lower than the real acceleration will be observed in the retreating frame.
This contradicts the principle of Relativity. The same phenomenon expresses itself differently depending on whether the inertial frame in which it develops is approaching or moving away from the observer.
Real versus Observable
The fact that what we observe is different from reality, although not unique in physics (e.g., a straight rod introduced into a pool of water looks like it is bent, the Doppler effect, etc.), has implications for the theory of knowledge, because we have imprinted on our minds that “real is what we see”. This means that, in spite of what we have said so far, the natural tendency is to accept what is observed as real.
Concept of Observable.
We are now ready to introduce a new concept that completes the aforesaid allegations. For example, when we observe a star located a hundred thousand light-years away, we could say that what we see now “was” real a hundred thousand years ago, when the star was there. Most people would agree with this explanation and no further explanation would be required. Generalizing, we could say that everything I see was real at some moment prior to the time indicated on my clock.
But the truth is that this affirmation is neither sufficient nor true because, due to the time it takes for information to reach the observer, the reality of that object is modified. In other words, the star we see at a distance of a hundred thousand light-years is not seen as it was then, but rather it is seen with a different speed, a different magnitude, different temperature, etc. – i.e. modified. It is this image that we see of the former, modified real object that I call the “observable" object.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1)
J.M. Munárriz. POR QUÉ ES FALSA LA TEORÍA DE LA RELATIVIDAD, Ed.(Relativo/Absoluto. (Madrid,2003)
Author: Jesús Mª Munárriz,
Postal address: 28003 Madrid
José Abascal, 63
Fax (91) 597 36 97
jmmunarriz@telefonica.net
