    ## Two Step Argument #2

Shows that Special Relativity cannot be interpreted as describing what’s physically happening.

Background: On the one hand, there’s a lot of evidence that there’s clock slowing due to increased velocity. This clock slowing is usually attributed to Special Relativity’s symmetric time dilation equation even though the effect is clearly asymmetric (e.g., GPS). This inconsistency is due to Special Relativity being the only currently accepted theory that could possibly be applied to explain clock slowing so it’s claimed to be the explanation despite the clear mismatch. The implication is that there must be a physical (asymmetric) explanation of clock slowing such as Lorentz Relativity.

One way to see that Special Relativity does NOT describe asymmetric physical effects such as clock slowing is given below by looking at Special Relativity’s  length contraction and mass increase equations.

Step 1: Let’s observe our sun from a frame that is moving at a velocity relative to the sun that’s arbitrarily close to the speed of light (e.g., 0.99999999c). At that relative velocity, in the context of Special Relativity, the “depth” of the sun and hence, its volume would contract to be arbitrarily small and its mass would increase to be arbitrarily large and, hence, the density would become arbitrarily great.

Step 2: Given Step 1, if Special Relativity described physical effects, the sun would be dense enough to become a black hole. However, the sun is not a black hole. Hence, the length contraction and mass increase equations that are functions of relative velocity are NOT describing physical effects. Since the derivation of time dilation equation is intimately tied to those two equations, it’s implied that it also does not describe physical effects (e.g., proper time accumulation).

Note 1:  A relativist might reflexively assert that because Special Relativity does not deal with black holes or gravitational effects, the above logic is bogus. However, that’s an irrelevant point. If the Sun was physically dense enough to be a black hole, then it would be a black hole regardless of what theory did or didn’t say.

Note 2: A relativist might then conclude that Special Relativity describes what’s “just observed”. However, even here the relativist is on shaky ground. There is no empirical support that A will observe “time dilation” for B AND B will observe “time dilation” for A. Further, much of this type of clock slowing data (e.g., GPS) shows just the opposite, namely, A experiences and observes clock slowing for B and B experiences and observes clock speed up for A 