can anyone point me to a good refutation of Einstein's relativity model?
Someone else noted Stephen Crothers on Youtube.
While not a refutation maybe the following might be helpful.
There are probably some common points.
In many cases the actual context for the reference to relativity's space time violates the principles of the special theory of relativity making the theory's equations irrelevant.
Much of modern physics involves the geometry of spacetime.
Some times this space time is interpreted wrong.
Every person has their view of the universe, called their frame of reference.
To describe positions of anything in that view a geometry is required. The geometry defines the relationship of the axes.
The observer's frame of reference uses the user's selected geometry. This geometry defines how the observer can describe his observations.
There are many geometries available.
The simplest is Euclidean geometry with its 3 axis coordinates for left/right, up/down, in/out; these are typically designated by the 3 letters X,Y,Z. The observer defines the zero reference for each axis coordinate. The X0,Y0,Z0 is often at the lower left corner in the observer's frame of reference.
This zero reference is usually adjusted by the observer.
Time is sometimes used as a 4th coordinate.
If I tell another observer of my observation at X1Y2Z3,T5 the other observer must use the same geometry to understand those coordinates.
This combination is critical. With the same geometry and its zero reference both observers are observing the same space defined by this geometry.
For multiple observers to interpret the same observed behavior from their individual frames of reference they must share the same frame of reference, the geometry and its zero reference.
Relativity assumes the location in the observer's observer's frame of reference are described in the Euclidean geometry with 3 axes, XYZ. Distances are calculated from changes in position during the time of acceleration.
Special Theory of Relativity is about the observer in acceleration. A non-accelerating observer follows normal physics.
The distortion in the observer's frame of reference is called space time curvature. Therefore a second, non-accelerating, observer cannot interpret the frame of reference of the first observer without a common frame of reference - or a common space time. The first observer has a distorted space time due to his/her acceleration but the other cannot have an identical distorted space time.
They cannot share an observation.
The famous twin paradox for relativity describes this difference in the frame of reference between the two observers. Each observer cannot see the other's space time.
This restriction is important.
There are wrong applications when ignoring this restriction.
If the accelerating observer encounters a huge mass that supposedly collapses into a singularity no other observer can share in that observation. A singularity also violates physics. Einstein knew nothing would conform to physics inside the theoretical point, zero radius, so no volume, so no mass, so it should have no gravity - but it does! The singularity had to be special.
By the theory of relativity only an accelerating observer right there can observe a black hole. No one else in the universe can observe that specific black hole.
Cosmologists propose millions of various sized black holes are seen in the universe but that proposal violates the theory of relativity that is used to claim such a thing could exist.
Some people interpret spacetime curvature as a static phenomenon observable by everyone. An example of this is proposing the universe's space time is curved around a distant galaxy. That proposal for all observers violates the theory of relativity.
The accelerating observer's curvature is not the physical universe that others can see.
Some propose space has a built-in geometry, or one was created by the big bang. That is wrong. The observer defines the geometry being used, not the universe.
Some propose the big bang started time. That is wrong. The observer defines the time coordinate being used. Some suggest using cosmological time; its zero reference is the big bang event. Even then that time definition is part of the observer's frame of reference and is not actually part of the universe. In practice we use a standard 'universal' time maintained by the counts of an atomic clock. An observer can use that time for observations or the zero reference for his time coordinate can be changed. One simple example is to offset the 'universal' time coordinate by the current time at the start of observations. This offset defines time=0 at the beginning of observations and then the time coordinate during the observation is the amount of time since the observation began.
Sometimes cosmologists prefer to think of time=0 at the big bang event.
This is done by using the theoretical amount of time since the big bang as the time coordinate offset; this calculated time since the big bang is called cosmological time.
In relativity, spacetime is typically defined with 3 dimensions in space plus time (your local time), so it is called space-time.
From an Einstein equation description:
The stress–energy tensor involves the use of superscripted variables (not exponents; see tensor index notation and Einstein summation notation). If Cartesian coordinates in SI units are used, then the components of the position four-vector are given by: x0 = t, x1 = x, x2 = y, and x3 = z, where t is time in seconds, and x, y, and z are distances in meters.
Note relativity uses distances from the current positions in a Euclidean geometry. Relativity and its spacetime never reference an absolute position in the universe; this spacetime is always based on the observer's change in current position and his frame of reference.
I have encountered some cosmology theories that describe a geometry for the fabric of space. The universe follows or conforms to this geometry.
That theory is impossible. It is impossible to describe physical locations and behaviors at the level of the entire universe for all observers when restricted to the observer's frame of reference.
Spacetime is always the accelerating observer's frame of reference.
It is never physical space observed by all.
Gravitational lensing is proposed for light bending around distant objects. Here on Earth we cannot observe a distant spacetime and its curvature.
Light is bent whenever the width of the beam passes through different densities of matter. A prism or the surface of water demonstrate this behavior. An atmosphere is most dense at the surface due to gravity on the gas. The 1919 observation of a star's position being bent by gravity was due to checking the light at the Sun's surface; this is at the bottom of the Sun's atmosphere. A true test of gravitational lensing should have been done above the atmosphere, but it was not.
I have seen online claims other planets and stars (other than Regulus) did not all bend as expected by Sun's gravity alone in 1919 but I know nothing about their accuracy.
Gravitational lensing is used by cosmologists to address an object observed in a wrong place by claiming that observation is an illusion caused by the light bending to appear where it should not be.
The typical scenario is where a high red shift quasar is observed in front of or next to a low red shift object. This is claimed to be an illusion. I posted about the quasar red shift recently.
If this phenomenon were real there should be many illusions around every huge galaxy in the universe; M31 does not show any.
At the top I noted Youtube has videos about relativity.
Many common references to the space time of special relativity are invalid.
Hit back to go to previous page in history.
Select Cosmology to see other posts and comments to that group.