20. The contradiction between big bang theory and length contraction theory
1. The length of a very fast moving object shrinks.
- Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction hypothesis -
2. The universe is expanding. - Hubble's Law, Big Bang Theory -
3. In the distant universe, there is a celestial body moving at the speed of light.
- Big Bang theory, event horizon -
4. The universe, just below the event horizon,
moves away from the Earth at a relatively relativistic pace.
- Big bang theory -
5. Looking at the earth from the event horizon,
rather the earth is near the horizon of the event.
- Big bang theory -
6. Galaxies, stellar systems, molecules, atoms, and atoms are all spatially coupled.
7. When an object runs at a relative speed,
the length of the rigid object is reduced by the Lorentz contraction,
and the distances of the two specially spaced objects are rather expanded.
- The mainstream researcher's claim of relativity theory that interprets Bell's paradox -
These seven facts will be the ones that are used today. These are not my claims. All are officially recognized in modern astronomy and relativity. Most of the above will be familiar. However, one or two may not be familiar. However, I will let you know in advance that these are not my claims, but the official theory of modern science.
In this post, I will thoroughly describe the story only with the currently accepted theory, and I will not mobilize any minor or unrecognized theory. The main contents are 'Length contraction theory' and 'Big bang theory'. When we think purely about these two theories and develop thinking experiments, our universe eventually comes to a catastrophe.
If you push the logic of two recognized theories to the end, this world you are seeing and living in must never exist. There must be no atoms, no molecules, no cells, no star or galaxy in the night sky.
I will thoroughly pursue my logic from scientific facts. If I have a problem in the process of logic, I will accept criticism. But if you acknowledge length contraction and the big bang theory, it will be hard to find a logical flaw in the process. But the end of that logic is catastrophic.
 |
| I exist. Therefore, the theory of length contraction is an error. |
I am alive, seeing the world through my eyes, and there is clearly a moon and a star in the night sky. But if there is a theory that denies all this, can this theory be justified? The best value in judging a theory should be 'nature and existence'. No matter how beautiful, authoritative and good theories are, if the nature of existence is denied, the theory should not exist. Introduction was too long. Now let's get into the details.
Still expanding universe
The big bang theory is a view of the universe by modern people. Most people believe the big bang theory is right. However, the big bang theory still needs a lot of additional data, and it is true that it is criticized by some scholars. Until the big bang theory is fully certified, there are many problems and there are many tasks to solve.
 |
| Still expanding universe |
But the obvious fact that no one can deny is that this universe we live in is expanding. In other words, Hubble's law is clearly observed. Hubble's law is neither a hypothesis nor a theory, and it has been proven by observations. Few people deny this Hubble's law. Hubble's law is an indisputable fact. Today's story begins with Hubble's law.
Below is a graph showing Hubble's law. Here, the vertical axis represents the retraction rate of the galaxies, and the horizontal axis represents the distance of the galaxies. In general, we can see that the speed of retraction and the distance of galaxies are proportional.
 |
| Hubble's law: The backward velocity v can be applied to the length contraction equation. |
The retraction speed of the vertical axis represents the rate at which it is moving away from the earth. This speed is that a whole galaxy is moving away from the Earth. Can v used here be applied to v used in relativity? Or is it not applicable?
Of course, it is applicable. There is no reason why the speed in the relativity's formula and the speed of the galaxy's retreat are of different nature. Therefore, if the retraction speed is very fast, it should have a relativistic effect.
The size of the universe in which we live
The size of the observable universe of our present universe is known to be 13.7 billion light years in its radius. This is not to say that the size of the entire universe in which we live is a radius of 13.7 billion light years from Earth. If we look at the earth, the universe we live in is as follows.
The dotted line is a distance of 13.7 billion light years from earth. This is called the event horizon, and even if we assume that the light on the event horizon started right after the Big Bang, today we can only reach earth. Therefore, the area beyond this dotted line is an unknown area that the earth people cannot recognize. The area we are interested in today is area A, which is a bit less than the event horizon.
According to modern cosmology, nowhere in the universe is the center of the big bang. At the same time, anywhere is the center of the universe. Then, we think that area A is near the event horizon. But when people in area A see, the earth is rather near the event horizon. These thoughts are very appropriate for modern cosmology. I do not want to cause a problem for myself about this. This is not my claim. It is just a narrative of modern cosmology.
 |
| The position of the earth in the entire universe. The real universe transcends the limits of human observation. |
We think that there is another world outside the 13.7 billion years in modern cosmology. When they look at A on the horizon of the event, there is a new 13.7 billion light years universe. If you think that the universe is limited to 13.7 billion light years, please do not misunderstand. Please refer to the many texts on this.
Bell's spaceship paradox
There is a famous paradox of the theory of relativity widely known by Bell. Twin pilots are riding on the same two spaceships. There is a thin string between these two spaceships. When the two spaceships start at the same time, with constant spacing, what is this line going to be?
The final conclusion of several scholars about this paradox is as follows. The existing Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction is applied to the two spaceships, and expansion is applied to the string between the two spaceships, not contraction. This is not my claim. It is the opinion of most current mainstream relativists.
The fact that the string between two spaceships are broken as follows, is a common view of most relativists on Bell's spaceship paradox.
To see the details, read what I posted earlier.
링커 걸기
Main scholars of Bell's spaceship paradox generally follow the interpretation of Dewan and Beran. Dewan and Beran claimed that there are two kinds of lengths as shown below.
(1) the distance between the two ends of the connected rod
(2) the distance between two objects that are independent and simultaneously moving
And the claims of Dewan and Beran are summarized as follows.
"Rigidly interconnected objects shrink, while spatially separated ones expand"
If you are not familiar with Bell's paradox, you might look a little absurd. But this is the best conclusion of the current relativist scholars. It is not a conclusion that relativist scholars dismissed. It is a conclusion that I carefully made after thoroughly studying everything. But if this conclusion is correct, then the universe in which we live can no longer exist.
Spatially-coupled all things
Is it possible to distinguish between "the length of a rigid object" and the "spatially separated distance" in our world? Let's first look at a large galaxy. Galaxies are a collection of many stars. There is an enormous space between these stars and the stars. Therefore, if a galaxy runs at relative speed, it is inevitably all separated. This is because all of the stars and spatially separated. In Bell's paradox, the two spaceships shrink, and as the strings break, all the stars in the galaxy must be separated. Then the galaxy can no longer form a galaxy.
Let's look at the star system like the solar system. If the star system is move at relativistic speeds, all of the planets inside the star system are spatially separated, so all of them must be disconnected as if the strings of the bell were broken. If stars inside the star system are all separated, neither the star nor the solar system can exist.
Let's look at molecules and atoms. A molecule is a combination of atoms and atoms, and an atom is a combination of atomic nuclei and electrons. However, atoms are spatially bound by atomic nuclei and electrons, and the interior of atoms is also mostly empty. Therefore, if a molecule or an atom runs at a relativistic speed, it will be cut off as if the string of a bell's spaceship is broken. If so, molecules and atoms cannot exist. The same is true for protons and neutrons. Therefore, neither protons nor neutrons exist.
The collapse of universe by the theory of length contraction
As I mentioned in the introduction, according to Hubble's law, the farther a galaxy is, the faster it retreats away from the Earth. There is a space where the recessional speed is close to the speed of light. This is called "the horizon of the event." Let's look at the place A, which is just below this horizon.
From the point of view of the Earth, all objects in Area A are moving at a relativistic speed. So, as we have seen above, they all have to be separated. Just as the string of the spaceship which Bell describes have been cut off, everything that joins must be broken.
If you cannot believe it, think about the interpretation of Dewan and Beran. Dewan and Beran divide the length of objects in the world into two. One is the length of a rigid object, and the other is a spatially separated distance. They argued that the former had caused Lorentz's contraction and that the latter would expand.
When a person in area A is looking at the earth, because the earth is moving at relativistic speed, all atoms and molecules in the earth must be decomposed completely. If this is true, you should never be present reading this article. What about reality? You and I certainly do exist. One of the most well-known proof methods is indirect proof. I suppose it is true that the universe expands.
Even in this difficulty, there is a way. We can thoroughly keep the basic philosophy of relativity, and interpret it without contradiction to the big bang theory. It is to remove the length contraction, and introduce a swelling length in its place. Then everything is interpreted in a natural way.
The expansion of the length has already been repeatedly proven experimentally. It is absolutely natural to be proved by the formula. Let's interpret the above problem as a length expansion.
First, we need to interpret Bell's paradoxes correctly. According to many scholars who interpret the Bell's spaceship paradox now, length contraction and space expansion are applied differently.
Two spaceships and strings are actually one object. But how does the contraction occur at the ends and the expansion occurs in the middle? Could this happen during natural phenomena? What is the basis for this? I understand, of course, the hard position of mainstream scholars that can only be described. Lorentz contraction is a traditional theory, and expansion in the above picture is a conclusion that necessarily follows when interpreting space-time diagram relativistically. So they cannot throw away anything.
But I dare to argue. You have to abandon length contraction so that everyone can survive. The length contraction is a temporary theory introduced without any verification to explain the interference pattern of the Michelson Morley experiment. Length contraction has never been proven experimentally for 100 years. Therefore, if it conflicts with Hubble's law, we must, of course, abandon the length contraction hypothesis. If you introduce length expansion by abandoning length contraction, the paradox of bell is interpreted as follows.
According to this assertion, everything that has been spatially separated from A must be destroyed. There should be nothing joining. So far there is no problem. If the earth person is the protagonist of the world and the center of the world is the earth, there is no problem.
However, according to the big bang theory, the center of the explosion of space does not exist. Everywhere is also the center of the universe. Therefore, if a person in area A sees the earth, the earth must be running at a relativistic speed.
When a person in area A is looking at the earth, because the earth is moving at relativistic speed, all atoms and molecules in the earth must be decomposed completely. If this is true, you should never be present reading this article. What about reality? You and I certainly do exist. One of the most well-known proof methods is indirect proof. I suppose it is true that the universe expands.
1. All objects running at relative speed shrink.
2. If so, all of the material in Area A and on the Earth must be decomposed. But material exists.
3. Therefore, length contraction is an error.
Therefore, either length contraction or the big bang theory must inevitably be discarded. Whether there is an error in the fact that the universe is expanding or an error in the theory of length contraction, one must be discarded.
Restoration of the Universe by length expansion theory
As long as we accept the theory of length contraction, we cannot avoid the destruction of the universe. How can we solve this logical contradiction? The current the theory of relativity is forced to meet a logical catastrophe. It does not seem to be solved. In this case, the problem cannot be solved in the current state.
We need to change the paradigm. Let's think about it coolly. Has the length contraction been proven by experimentation? The time dilation is also proven experimentally and the mass increase is also experimentally proven. Why did not the only length contraction be experimentally proven?
If you wish to claim that muon's sea level reach is experimental evidence of length contraction, I would appreciate it if you read the following. Since muon has increased the distance, it cannot be said to be evidence of length contraction.
We need to change the paradigm. Let's think about it coolly. Has the length contraction been proven by experimentation? The time dilation is also proven experimentally and the mass increase is also experimentally proven. Why did not the only length contraction be experimentally proven?
If you wish to claim that muon's sea level reach is experimental evidence of length contraction, I would appreciate it if you read the following. Since muon has increased the distance, it cannot be said to be evidence of length contraction.
Even in this difficulty, there is a way. We can thoroughly keep the basic philosophy of relativity, and interpret it without contradiction to the big bang theory. It is to remove the length contraction, and introduce a swelling length in its place. Then everything is interpreted in a natural way.
The expansion of the length has already been repeatedly proven experimentally. It is absolutely natural to be proved by the formula. Let's interpret the above problem as a length expansion.
First, we need to interpret Bell's paradoxes correctly. According to many scholars who interpret the Bell's spaceship paradox now, length contraction and space expansion are applied differently.
Two spaceships and strings are actually one object. But how does the contraction occur at the ends and the expansion occurs in the middle? Could this happen during natural phenomena? What is the basis for this? I understand, of course, the hard position of mainstream scholars that can only be described. Lorentz contraction is a traditional theory, and expansion in the above picture is a conclusion that necessarily follows when interpreting space-time diagram relativistically. So they cannot throw away anything.
But I dare to argue. You have to abandon length contraction so that everyone can survive. The length contraction is a temporary theory introduced without any verification to explain the interference pattern of the Michelson Morley experiment. Length contraction has never been proven experimentally for 100 years. Therefore, if it conflicts with Hubble's law, we must, of course, abandon the length contraction hypothesis. If you introduce length expansion by abandoning length contraction, the paradox of bell is interpreted as follows.
The string between the two spaceships and the spaceship expands. Therefore, no tension is applied to the string. Therefore, the string is not broken. When you look at the A region, which moves at almost the speed of light on Earth, everything is multiplied by γ times. Therefore, the galaxy also expands, the star system expands, and the atomic molecules and the quarks expand in the direction of progress, so there is no tension. Therefore, there is nothing to be separated.
It's like watching the world with a magnifying glass. By my act of magnifying glass, the world beyond the magnifying glass is not affected. It is the same. Even if you observe region A, region A will not be affected. The reverse is true. Therefore, even if the earth expands in space, it does not receive any tension, so daily life and peace are preserved. Everything is in place.
We could have lost the existence of the world, the logic, the philosophy, and the everyday because of the wrong theory. The wrong theory eventually leads to contradictions. There are many paradoxes in relativity. Most of these paradoxes are due to length contractions. Wherever length contraction is involved, the paradox is explosively mass-produced. However, if the paradox intervenes with the theory of length expansion, as if the snow melts, the contradiction disappears. Today I looked at one of those examples. Thank you for reading this long post.
We could have lost the existence of the world, the logic, the philosophy, and the everyday because of the wrong theory. The wrong theory eventually leads to contradictions. There are many paradoxes in relativity. Most of these paradoxes are due to length contractions. Wherever length contraction is involved, the paradox is explosively mass-produced. However, if the paradox intervenes with the theory of length expansion, as if the snow melts, the contradiction disappears. Today I looked at one of those examples. Thank you for reading this long post.
Comments
Post a Comment