36 Objections To Theory Of Relativity

36 Objections to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
         Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was published in the year 1905 as the most general explanation of nature and its phenomenon.
         Einstein based his theory on two hypotheses which he referred to as fundamental hypotheses. The first hypothesis says that optical phenomena are independent of the conditions in which they occur and the second hypothesis is about constancy of velocity of light. Both the hypotheses are unverified, irrational and implausible as the most valid generalized explanation of nature and its phenomenon. Einstein has no where given reasons in support of his claims about the two fundamental hypotheses as being the most valid generalized explanations of nature.
         In year 1919 Sir Arthur Eddington of Royal Astronomical Society experimentally demonstrated mathematically precise gravitational deflection of light – A fact predicted by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. On the basis of this single piece of evidence, the entire theory came to be accepted as the most valid generalized explanation of nature without further enquiry and investigation. Soon physicists elevated it the level of Gospel truth even though they found it too difficult to understand.  All those who were in disagreement with Einstein were unable to prove their point of view.
         This theory is a glaring example of as to how at times one can reach the right conclusions for wrong reasons.
         Einstein and his followers limitlessly extrapolated the two fundamental hypotheses to Unified Field Theory and even beyond through a series of unverified, irrational and implausible turns and twists (assumptions and presumptions). For example Einstein beginning from his two fundamental hypotheses in his own style mathematically and logically deduced the equation E=∆mc2 but actually advocated the famous equation E=mc2 without offering any explanation as to how ∆m can be equated with m, both being entirely different physical quantities as per his own derivation. Moreover Einstein did not consider for a moment that to prove the equation E=mc2, there is no need to rely upon his two fundamental hypotheses. It can be easily proved using Planck’s Law and        de Broglie’s equation.
         It is a historical fact that in the course of unlimited extrapolation of Einstein’s Theory, several physical phenomena were predicted, identified and defined, at times right predictions for wrong reasons such as mass energy equivalence, gravitational mass of photons, black holes etc. But Einstein’s Theory has led to a mythology of its own creation such as gravitational collapse of universe leading to formation of black holes which is quite implausible keeping properties of matter in view, string theory where strings are beyond human experience, space time continuum, Geodesic lines etc.
         This unlimited extrapolation of two fundamental hypotheses is totally unwarranted because nature is hierarchically organized and the applicable rules vary from one hierarchical level to another. Before anything can be accepted as the most valid generalized explanation of nature, it needs to be shown that it is valid across the entire natural hierarchy. It has never been shown that the two fundamental hypotheses are valid across the natural hierarchy.
         Again it has never been shown that Einstein’s fundamental hypotheses are valid in non-linear domain. Moreover before accepting Einstein’s Theory of Relativity as the most valid generalized explanation of nature, it needs to be shown that both the fundamental hypotheses can sufficiently explain all natural phenomena such as Consciousness, all origins, creations, evolutions, phenomena of life etc. Therefore Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does not provide comprehensive explanation of natural phenomena.
         The author in his book “ENCOUNTER OF SCIENCE WITH PHILOSOPHY – A SYNTHETIC VIEW” has listed 36 objections to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Proponents of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity are called upon to meet these objections in order to defend their faith and to continue to enjoy their faith and belief in the same.
         The fact is that physicists have, historically, misguided themselves in believing in existence of mathematic-logically perfect explanation of nature, cosmos and phenomena of life. Physicists live with the pious hope that one day they would be able to comprehensively explain nature and its phenomena and on that day physics would emerge as the most fundamental of natural sciences. So the so called singularities surprise them and three dimensional space has been extended to 20 dimensions and they talk about time machine, supergravity and gravitons- entities beyond human perception, direct or indirect.
         Finally, no doubt, mathematics and logic are the best tools in pursuit of understanding nature and its phenomena but they are limited in their applicability by nature of interacting entities and the context and this must always be kept in mind while using these tools.
         Author:  Dr Mahesh C. Jain – he is practicing medicine and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view” The book begins from a scientifically valid concept of God and from this humble beginning embraces the entire cosmic phenomena within its fold.
Visit: http://www.sciencengod.com
          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm