1.0   How flat is flat?

    Let’s first make absolutely clear that Einstein length contraction is just a thought experiment. No one
    has ever run a physical experiment to verify his specific length contraction claim simply because
    such a test is impossible to run. It is impossible to run not because we cannot travel anywhere near
    the speed of light, but because, if we did, the observers would be too far away from the traveler after a
    few seconds to substantiate Einstein’s claim! This ‘local’ issue is pertinent because relativists stage
    length contraction in a relatively flat, gravity-free universe, which in the religion of General Relativity
    means ‘a small region of space.’ Relativists go out of their way to ensure you understood this ‘local’
    feature of their theory:

    “ Special relativity is only accurate when gravitational effects are negligible or very
        weak, otherwise it must be replaced by general relativity.” [1]

    Actually, this statement is technically inaccurate, and it is crucial to underscore the difference. SR is
    valid only in a perfectly flat, gravity-free universe and not at all in a scenario that is nearly flat.

    “ Special relativity is ‘special,’ because it is a special case of GR, namely that there
        are no gravitational fields or accelerations, and that space is flat and static.” [2]

    “ SR is valid only in flat Lorentz manifolds topologically equivalent to R4.” [3]

    Relativists gloss over this seemingly trivial semantic issue, meaning that they have no clue as to how
    important it is. It is not the same thing for your table to approach flatness as it is for it to be perfectly
    flat. It is not the same for the Universe to be a humongous ball that you 'measure' to be flat in your
    vicinity as it is for the Universe to actually look like a washboard (Fig. 1 vs.  Fig. 2).
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/31/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
Flatland is not all it was
cracked up to be. I shouldn't
have come here. My ruler
shrunk. My clock is running
slow. The next thing I'll hear is
that my twin brother is older
than me!
SR is flat; GR is curved;
the real world is neither

    The mathematicians get these misconceived ideas from indulging in too much math talk, specifically the
    concept of a limit. They routinely analyze limits and what happens at a limit. But what happens near a
    boundary is not what happens exactly at the boundary. One is an extrapolation, a deduction. The other
    is the real thing.

    Therefore, before we start our analysis, we must place Special Relativity in its proper context: it has
    nothing to do with the real world simply because there is no place in the Universe free of space-time’s
    pervasive curvature. According to GR, even the tiny region occupied by a quark is bent out of shape:

    " The presence of matter changes the geometry of spacetime, this (curved) geometry
       being interpreted as gravity." [4]

    And according to relativity, space is warped not because it truly is physically warped but because the
    mathematician perceives it to be warped:

    “An infinitesimal piece of spacetime ‘looks flat’.” [5]

    So perception is yet another can of worms. Like Charismatic Christians, Relativists can't live without
    testimonials. Kill the witness and Mathematical Physics is dead!

    The bottom line is that the approximations to flatness of relativity (as well as the perceptions of
    observers) have nothing to do with the real world. This is a black and white issue. Either something is
    flat or it is curved. A standalone object is flat or curved on its own before the mathematician pulls out his
    measuring tape. Either there is gravity and curvature or there isn’t. The idiot of Mathematics wants you
    to believe that because the thing is almost flat (or looks flat to him), it is flat. If Special Relativity requires
    absolute flatness to work, it is divorced from and should not be advertised as depicting reality. Special
    Relativity is an oxymoron, a theory designed to explain the workings of the real universe based on
    admittedly impossible and unreal assumptions.


    2.0   How close is close?

    A second shortcoming is that relativists have yet to define what they mean by local. How far should a
    boy travel in his spaceship before gravity affects the Lorentz equation if SR assumes a gravity-free
    universe?

    The answer again is the same: the boy can travel as far as he wants because the Lorentz formula
    makes no provisions for boundaries. SR has to do with mathematical limits and not with Physics. The
    mathematician tackles the problem by assuming that space is a physical object, specifically a ball     
    (Fig. 2). Somehow he manages to reconcile this sphere with a washboard (Fig. 1). I am too ignorant to
    understand this. My intelligence simply doesn't reach that far. Then he looks at a portion of the surface
    of the ball, what is known as an arc; the greater the ball, the flatter the arc (Fig. 2). So he asks: ‘What
    happens at the limit where the arc (a side of the ball) changes into a straight line.’ ('Gee! I don't know,
    Einstein! Maybe the ball turned into a box!). He forgets that if the arc turns into a line it is no longer an
    arc, not to mention that his sphere turned into a cube or into a pancake. Thus, the idiot of SR assumes
    that the entire Universe is flat, cubic, and gravity free. These assumptions are absolutely ludicrous. But
    they're the only ones that make Special Relativity work. So how is it that the lamebrains claim that
    Special Relativity has been confirmed and never falsified if these assumptions are not found anywhere
    in the Universe?

    If these statements offend relativists, they are welcome to define ‘local’ unambiguously. If they’re
    successful, I recommend next that they include this factor in their equation so that the ET does not have
    to make ‘flatness’ an assumption.
Fig. 2   Solid-land
Fig. 1   Flatland
    ... as it is for the Universe to
    approach flatness.
Well shiver me timbers,
Steve! The Earth is flat after
all! This absolutely falsifies
General Relativity!
It is not the same for the Universe
to be perfectly flat...