DEBUNKING RELATIVITY

IS RELATIVITY WRONG?

The short answer is yes.

The reasoning is simple:

• The Twin Paradox is currently “explained” using the accelerated sections of the Traveling Twing trip. In other words, Theorists will just wave their hands and say that one geodesic is different from the other (they are, but that doesn’t explain anything). Below is an explanation by a brilliant Theoretician, Dr. Stam Nicolis.
• You will see that I disagree with him. I also consider him to be part of a cult, one that accepts nonsensical "common knowledge" without reflection.
• That said, that is what all of them do, so I don't blame Dr. Nicolis for that.

#######################################

#######################################

#######################################

Dr. Nicolis never came back.

#######################################

#######################################

#######################################

• I used Minkowski Spacetime Rotation by imaginary angle to derive the elapsed time during the accelerated sections

• It is nonsensical if Einstein’s Postulate of Equivalence of Inertial Reference Frames is correct.

The Paradox exists exactly because of that. If the Resting Twin cannot tell that the Traveling Twin is traveling at a relativistic speed and because of that, he is aging slower because nobody can say who is traveling, then when they meet, their aging has to be the same.

THE SOLUTION TO THE PARADOX

The Solution is simple:

Inertial Frames are not equivalent, and by serendipity (not exactly, since I can explain why), the resting twin is sitting on An Absolute Reference Frame, and time dilation depends upon ABSOLUTE VELOCITY and not relative velocity.

HOW COULD THE RESTING TWIN BE SITTING EXACTLY ON THE ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME?

The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU) explains that the Universe is a Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Hypersurface and that all Particles are made from deformed space and SURF the Inner Dilation Layer (IDL). All particles were derived from OCL (Outermost Contraction Layer). IDL pushed out OCL and fragmented, thus creating a Blackholium (the first recognizable state of this Universe).

Hence, HU states that the Universe is just a hypersurface embedded in a larger dimensionality spatial manifold, not different from a sphere existing in our 3D Universe.

Here, you can see yourself at position A, looking into the sky and seeing light that originated in a galaxy at position B when the Universe was smaller, denser, and more homogeneous.

This plot shows A MATERIAL BODY inertial motion in 4D:

Here is a cross-section of the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Hypersurface (3D hypersurface) that represents our 3D Universe.

The straight line represents the inertial motion of gases in the very diluted universe. As you can see, the angle alpha1 diminishes as the universe expands. This means that the Absolute Velocity decreases, and gases coalesce (without changing their initial velocity) around what I call "Their Hubble Position."

All atoms with the same Hubble Position will have a low center of mass temperature on that reference frame. So, the velocity (a.k.a) temperature didn't change. The velocity decreased with respect to the Hubble Point center of mass. In other words, kinetics in a 4D spatial manifold is enough to explain the adiabatic cooling of the universe.

Notice the angle alpha1 with the RADIAL DIRECTION (a vector perpendicular to our 3D Universe at every point of it). As the body travels, alpha1 becomes alpha2, where alpha1<alpha2.

In other words, as the initial turbulent gas traveled, its ABSOLUTE VELOCITY (VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE HYPERSURFACE) diminished until the gas was “cool enough for galaxy formation.”

In other words, unlike the “Adiabatic Cooling of Ideal Gases” in thermodynamics, the cooling of the rarefied gas in the universe is due to dynamics and not to equilibrium with the expanding container.

Of course, this explains how gases cooled on Hubble Point and form galaxies on Hubble Points (with small or zero Absolute Velocity).

Our galaxy and all the others (according to Hubble’s observations in his 1929 paper) are sitting still - like the dots on an expanding balloon. That expanding balloon is the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Hypersurface.

So, not by Serendipity but by Physics, all galaxies are like dots on a balloon, and coincidentally, relativistic velocities are also Absolute Relativistic Velocities (because we have zero absolute velocity or 0.2% of c).

So, the Velocity to be used in all Physics should be the Absolute Velocity. That velocity goes into Lorentz's transformation and is everywhere in physics.

WHAT ABOUT GENERAL RELATIVITY?

General Relativity is supposed to be about Metric, Geodesics, and Einstein’s equations. Well, you just have to ask yourself what is the velocity that goes into the metrics.

All metrics are derived from the Minkowski Spacetime Metric or Lorentz Metric. Gravitation is introduced as a virtual velocity (the falling velocity of a body from a body subject to a gravitational source with zero total energy).

So, let’s consider Schwarzschild Metric. A falling body starting with zero kinetic energy and placed at an infinite distance from a gravitational source has zero total energy: Total Energy = Kinetic + Potential Energy

As it falls down, its velocity increases, and the potential energy becomes more negative to keep Energy Conservation:

You might think that that is irrelevant, but you would be wrong. A lightspeed expanding universe is not controlled by the hypersurface’s contents (Stress Tensor); thus, it does not follow Einstein’s equations.

You might say: HEY, L-CDM EXPLAINED THE UNIVERSE EXPANSION!!!!

I would reply: SO DID THE HYPERGEOMETRICAL UNIVERSE THEORY.

Here is the Type 1a Supernova Data analyzed by HU:

I derived Natural Laws from first principles, and HU law of gravitation is epoch-dependent, and G is inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe. Since Type 1a Supernovae detonate when they reach the Chandrashekar Mass Limit:

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Letter-to-Riess

WHAT AN EPOCH-DEPENDENT G CAN DO TO EXPLAIN JWST OBSERVATIONS?

I modeled M3 Galaxy (as a typical galaxy) across the epochs:

M33 is a peculiar galaxy because it has a flat rotation curve.

These plots are z=0 and z=19, where I modeled the mass distribution of the M33 galaxy and showed that it is consistent with its rotation curve. They also show that the galaxy was much smaller and brighter in the past due to stronger gravitation.

I explained that depending upon the initial time when the gases reached their Hubble Point, the galaxy formation time would change:

This plot shows that if the galaxy started forming at z=10, the formation time would be 0.75 billion years or 750 million years. z= 10 corresponds to a 4D radius of 14.04/11 or 1.27 billion years. So, the galaxy would be fully formed when the universe was 2 billion years old. Of course, I fitted the data and can explain the fast galaxy formation times observed by JWST as well as the extremely bright galaxies (their surface brightness is 600 times larger than that of our local galaxies).

The current “explanations” don’t exist… just idiotic nonsense (e.g., Dark Matter Stars) or claims that someone provided an explanation that solves the problem..>:)

Of course, since I used M33 galaxy, my theory also explains the Galaxy Rotation Curve Conundrum (why the rotation curve is flat as opposed to “obeying Newton’s laws”).

IN SUMMARY

HU debunked the word Relativity in Einstein’s Relativity theory. I also created a new model for matter, a new cosmogenesis…, and explained all conundrums… and yet, not a single scientist opened their big mouth to help me overcome censorship (e.g., offered to be my endorser at Los Alamos Archives, where Dr. Paul Ginsparg has been censoring me since 2006).

So, it is disappointing…:)

THE UNIVERSE EXPLAINED BY THE HYPERGEOMETRICAL UNIVERSE THEORY

What is the Universe's precursor?

https://www.quora.com/What-if-I-believe-our-universe-was-always-here-and-the-rules-and-laws-of-reality-itself-triggered-the-Big-Bang-that-the-universe-s-own-rules-forced-it-to-exist/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

DYNAMIC SPATIAL REFERENCE FRAME DIMENSIONALITY REDUCTION.

Pretty soon, you will hear copycats using this argument.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-commonly-believed-that-we-live-in-only-three-dimensions-when-there-are-more-dimensions-than-just-height-width-and-depth/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - replacement to the Big Bang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK-Lyb7NfM

Big Pop Article

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v1

Here, I explained why the Universe has four spatial dimensions by calculating the probability of universes of different dimensionalities.

https://www.quora.com/Can-Dr-Marco-Pereira-explain-WHY-we-live-in-a-3D-Universe/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-commonly-believed-that-we-live-in-only-three-dimensions-when-there-are-more-dimensions-than-just-height-width-and-depth/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

HU parameterless prediction of Annular Galaxy Clusters. Not only its existence but also its position in the observable universe.

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Did-Dr-Marco-Pereira-predict-the-existence-of-Annular-Galaxy-Clusters-like-the-one-recently-discovered-1

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Simone Farinelli made his points against my argument.

Here I clarify my answer to him.

1. The current "explanation" assigns the aging to the "non-inertial nature of the traveling Twin motion".
2. There is no requirement for the Traveling Twin to be accelerating and decelerating ALL THE TIME. He can accelerate for a day to reach coasting velocity v. He can use constant acceleration a. He can decelerate with constant deceleration -a for two days. That would also reverse the direction of travel. Then he would coast at -v back home. At last, he would spend a day decelerating to a full stop. In other words, one can Gedanke that the non-inertial motion is restricted to 4 days. If v is close to c, those four days would be just a few seconds for the traveling twin. That is ok, so the twin will be younger by four days... let's not fight for those four days.
3. The question concerns the rest of the trip, which is done inertially. Einstein's Relativity states that "all inertial frames are equivalent" and that one uses Relative Velocity to calculate time dilation.
4. Well, the relative velocity from the traveling twin always has the same value as the one perceived by the Earth's Twin. It might change the sign, but that doesn't matter for time dilation (boost depends upon v**2).
5. We know that time dilation is real. We assume that inertial frames are equivalent. Equivalent reference frames should yield the same aging.
6. Hence, Inertial Reference Frames cannot be equivalent.
7. I explained WHY the calculation would calculate the correct value for aging or time dilation. The reason is because the Earth's Twin is measuring everything on the Absolute Reference Frame. Hence the velocity used (which one considers to be Relative) is also Absolute Velocity.
8. In other words, one can get the right results using v, not because v is the Relative Velocity but because v is the Absolute Velocity.

In other words, nobody is debating the numerical calculation. One is debating the interpretation of v (is it a relative velocity or is it an Absolute Velocity).

The paradox is only lifted if one considers it ABSOLUTE VELOCITY.

I went to lengths to explain why all galaxies are sitting still on the Fabric of Space.

Here is the simple explanation using the cross-section of the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Hypersurface.

The straight line is the inertial motion of gases (precursor to galaxies). It is easy to see that alpha1 is larger than alpha2. This means that as the universe expands (the locus of all matter expands at the speed of light - space remains static and unstretched), the Absolute Velocity of galaxies diminishes.

That explains Hubble's Observations and the analogy: Galaxies are like dots on an expanding balloon.

One can only use that analogy if there is an Absolute Reference frame on which those velocities are zero (or close to it).

IN SUMMARY

To focus on the numbers misses the forest by the trees.

The Paradox is more subtle, and Einstein missed the opportunity to refute his own theory and discover mine.

PS - My conversation with Simone Farinelli ended in this exchange and that is OK.