Small flaws in relativity? [split]

[TriggerGrinn]

There is an interesting paper written on relativity that I am going over recently.

 

WHERE EINSTEIN Flawed Relativity to a small degree.

 

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

 

I should add that I have a degree in physics from the University of Santa Clara. For years, I confounded my professors by working out complex problems in relativistic mechanics in my head. They said I was mostly exactly correct but at extremely high velocities near 99.99999 percent of the velocity of light, my answers were just a tad bit too big, compared to Einstein's equations. I said, that's because Einstein was wrong. I still got the physics degree anyway.

 

I should also add that recent experiments and measurements over long time periods or distances, such as the two Pioneer spacecraft which recently left beyond the edges of our solar system, seem to show that Einstein's equations give answers which are just a tad bit too small.

[swansont]

There are some historical problems with that site. Einstein won his Nobel in 1921, not at the time he published in 1905, so the contention that his work wasn't peer-reviewed because of his status is crap, and with it the idea that other physicists were cowed into silence.

 

There's no math error. Scientists ignore unphysical results of equations all the time. Occasionally, the discarded results actually do have some physical meaning. The poster has not actually pointed out what deviations are expected at large speeds, or any actual data that support this contention.

[jck]

First of all I am happy to agree that the problems may still have some other reason for not confirming relativity.

 

Differential particle gravity however would have, at distance, objects either increasing or decreasing the rate they accelerate, they would also veer off course.

 

DPG is a natural result of working with space and energy before big bang and that is my consideration, it has nothing to do with theory apart from having a new perspective which can be compared without contamination.

 

john

jck