This video from smirky pop science guru Brian Cox explains time dilation with a "stationary" and "moving" light clock. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b2Vd9HGB5XQ
However since the foundation of Special Relativity is that all motion is relative, it is impossible to say one frame is "moving" and therefore impossible to say that only one frame is "slowed down". Both would have to be "slowed down" relative to the other. In other words the slowing in this thought experiment is just from the perspective of a frame of reference, but not real.
So why then does academia and the media insist Einstein's theory explains true and LASTING clock slowing? Is it an intentional conspiracy? I'm not so sure. Although perhaps those at the very top know better and pursue real science without relativity, it wouldn't be the first time science went astray organically.
It may be divine judgement on an immoral relativist world. And to that end I say good and "thy will be done". But for those of us who seek real truth in science, Einstein's work must be overturned. Herein lies an advantage for the decentralized over the well funded & centralized.
Or maybe I'm wrong and just a kook. Perhaps my tiny theistic brain can't grasp the complexity of Einstein's theories and should leave the thinking to those genius physicists. But until those genius physicists start doing anything truly ground breaking with relativity instead of chasing after black holes, "dark matter" and "gravitational waves", I'll stand by my reasoning.
Not necessarily, but this is a likely possibility.
Agreed. "Gravitational lensing" is not a thing, nor is there any experimental support for the possibility that it might be.
More to your point, yes - most all the "proofs" of relativity are themselves widely publicized hoaxes.
They are equivalent, and for the exact same reasons. One was, ostensibly, made to supersede and replace the other precisely because they are the same. Both are entirely unscientific and magic, and for the same reasons.
In my view, there is no "gravitational force" at all. There is only weight, which is an intrinsic property of all matter.
But that does not make fields real! We have many well defined concepts, many of which are useful - but that doesn't make them actually exist in manifest reality outside of our conceptions.
When einstein said "nothing more of his castle in the sky remains", he was talking about fields - writ large. He was remarking on how successful the quantumnists had been with quanta/particle-based views/conceptions.
In the exact same way as "gravitation" and for the same reasons. It is defined in the equations, and does not exist in any way outside of them.
How can "space-time" act upon you, when you yourself are both within and comprised of "space-time"? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck...
Correct. Exactly like gravitation before it, and for the exact same reasons.
I do however empathize with the general view that einstein was no newton.
One of the simple proofs for relativity being wrong is its many paradoxes (often taught in conjunction with it to students as "mysteries of the faith" rather than the massive errors that they necessarily are and prove).
Mathematicians are not scientists. If the math is useful, use it.
True
This is the error. Useful does not equal correct. This is a common and encouraged erroneous conflation.
Geocentrism described astronomical reality very well too...
I don't blame them for being mistaught and therefore wrong in this regard.
Aether-mcarthyism. In order for relativity to be the only option available, the other aether theories needed to be cleared away / declared forbidden.
Exactly, and this is precisely why it is unscientific (unemperical), and why gravitation was before it. Newton understood that he was introducing unscientific magic and a "philosophically unsound" fictional concept into physics when he invoked gravitation to solve an astronomical math problem. The subsequent students were not taught honestly about that. Experimentalism is the engine of science, not fanciful theory.
There is nothing straightforward about the three body problem or the surface postulate - but in general, i agree - one is less convoluted than the other. However, they are identically fictional and unscientific - and for the exact same reasons.
I see your point that something has to be postulated and imagined. However, the quality of the assumption with Newton's gravity is much higher with its simplicity and humility. Newton just says in essence "some force" is acting on the object and is related to mass. That's a very reasonable and fairly unassuming unknown left in there. People can postulate it is a field, or the actions of ether or gravitons or w/e, but Newton didn't force them to. Newton was observing physical laws and made math to best describe them.
Newton didn't concoct fanciful new concepts as relativity does. Relativity says "we observe a force on an object, AND the force is a result of this frankenstein amalgamation of two unrelated concepts that leads to all sorts of other problems". Those bizarre physical assumptions lead to a view of the world with strange paradoxes including the absurdity of relative simultaneity which makes it technically impossible to determine cause and effect in the universe. Newton's gravitational calculations only leads to some inaccurate calculations. No mind bending paradoxes that turns physics on its head.
That is the key difference. The level of absurdity and I'd dare say arrogance in trying to make the physical world fit a vision rather than simply trying to describe what is observed.
In science, postulations/imaginings/guesses only have a place in hypothesis generation. The purpose of hypotheses is only to be experimentally verified or refuted. A hypothesis only becomes science after experimentally verified, and a valid hypothesis can never invoke fictional imaginings as a cause (ex "zeus caused this").
Newton understood that what he was doing was so blatantly unscientific that he famously didn't even attempt to formulate a hypothesis for gravitation - and of course - nor any experiment to test or validate it.
He just made it up (sort of, the concept already existed - credited to the ancient greeks - he really just "invoked" it)
He wasn't even observing physical laws - he was observing lights in the sky and then using math and fantasy to make up laws. This is, of course, completely unacceptable in science and inherently unscientific. Experiment is the driving engine of science, not fiction/imagination/math.
It is science to do as you describe - it is called "natural law", merely the description (in any language, mathematics included - but traditionally ... english) of what is. However, again, natural law cannot include fantasy/fiction nor speculate on cause (as newton's "law" blatantly did).
No, as i said - he merely "invoked" ones that rich ancient greeks had concocted while sitting on their asses, musing on reality.
It is hardly better.
True. And it is a simple explanation why relativity is clearly wrong. Paradoxes that are irreconcilable with reality as well as unobserved are not a "badge of honor" (as they are often misrepresented as) for a framework designed to describe/explain it.
Keeping in mind that i generally agree that newtons "sin" was less egregious, he did exactly that - and every physicist worth their salt since has loathed him for introducing magic into physics. "Spooky action at a distance", something (mass) acting upon something (mass) through nothing is absolutely anathema to physics.
It is the war of rational positivism vs pure theory. One is science, the other isn't.
All that said, and largely agreeing with your position in many respects - it is worth mentioning that - just like "newton's folly" - relativity is useful in certain contexts and matches with what we observe.
For instance, when we try to accelerate a particle - even in the best vacuum we can muster, for instance, it does not take the energy that newton's equations predict - but the ones that relativity does. This is one example of many. It is kept and taught not so much because it is correct, but because it is useful in certain contexts.
Also, einstein is a patron saint of scientism and they paid a LOT of money to secure that title. They won't give it up easily.