Why Special Relativity is wrong

[xshen]

Attached are the pdf and words format. Because the short article contains equation that can't paste here.

Hope interesting people join discuss or e-mail me.

my e-mail address is xl_shen@yahoo.com

Why the Special Relativity is wrong.pdf

Why the Special Relativity is wrong.doc

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As D H said the last time you posted this,

The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of Maxwell's equations and it is consistent with all experiments conducted to date.

Unless you have some reason to dispute those experiments, simply saying that one postulate seems unreasonable to you (or that the results seem unreasonable) does not prove relativity wrong.

 

Unless you have something else to add regarding those experiments, there isn't much point to this. The experiments agree with the postulates.

[swansont]

Do you understand what a postulate is?

[D H]

Moved to speculations

[Phi for All]

I'm always amazed by the number of people who explain that SR is either unreasonable or non-intuitive, and somehow conclude that it is therefore wrong. No one has ever been able to reproduce any experimental results which seem to contradict it, and that's usually enough for most scientists to rely on successful results. For some reason SR, like perpetual motion, seems to draw out those who insist that everything must be intuitive.

[vuquta]

Attached are the pdf and words format. Because the short article contains equation that can't paste here.

Hope interesting people join discuss or e-mail me.

my e-mail address is xl_shen@yahoo.com

 

 

After this point in your paper:

Maybe someone said forgot the old stationary reference frame, considering the Light Source itself as stationary inertial reference frame. That means the Light Source always rested with stationary reference frame K. It is already recognized that the light speed dependent with Light Source. Let’s continue discuss this situation that was a one of many possibilities that discuss in SR

 

You mixed frames without stating and proving a rule to do so.

 

You are looking at the same thought experiment for LT construction in your paper.

 

You could argue then Einstein mixed frames with LT construction. But, that is not true. To construct LT, Einstein used stationary frame clock synchronization to move from one frame to another since the clock sync is "free from contradictions" in the any frame.

 

You do not provide such a rule "free from contradictions" and so your analysis does not work.

[Bignose]

May I suggest you read: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/

 

It is an excellent collection of experimental evidence that supports general relativity. As general relativity is the extension of special relativity, experimental evidence that supports GR also supports SR. In order to defend your idea, you better be able to show why every single piece of evidence in that paper is incorrect.

[xshen]

I am not deny the constancy of the speed of light is a constant c, I just say the speed of light is a constant c relative with it Light Source, and dependent with its source. The “speed” must refer something or frame, the naturally choose is Light Source frame that it stay with, if we do so, it is contradiction with SR postulation, if we do not choose the Light Source frame, according SR “independent”, then we can randomly choose any frame which may lead to many different result.

 

In my article I use the same rule as “stationary frame clock synchronization to move from one frame to another since the clock sync is "free from contradictions" in the any frame”. If clock sync each other, simplicity way is set them are all same.

 

I am not creating a new theory, I just point out the Newton or Galileo theory is correct.

I hope someone figure out what is wrong in my article, also appreciate make English correction in this article.

[vuquta]

I am not deny the constancy of the speed of light is a constant c, I just say the speed of light is a constant c relative with it Light Source, and dependent with its source. The “speed” must refer something or frame, the naturally choose is Light Source frame that it stay with, if we do so, it is contradiction with SR postulation, if we do not choose the Light Source frame, according SR “independent”, then we can randomly choose any frame which may lead to many different result.

 

In my article I use the same rule as “stationary frame clock synchronization to move from one frame to another since the clock sync is "free from contradictions" in the any frame”. If clock sync each other, simplicity way is set them are all same.

 

I am not creating a new theory, I just point out the Newton or Galileo theory is correct.

I hope someone figure out what is wrong in my article, also appreciate make English correction in this article.

 

Wrong on the bold aboe.

 

Sagnac as verified by GPS shows light is a constant c in space as Einstein said:

 

light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body

 

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

 

There are many additional experiments that show light cannot be increased in the frame.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

 

These experiments show light is constant regardless of the motion of the light source.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I am not deny the constancy of the speed of light is a constant c, I just say the speed of light is a constant c relative with it Light Source, and dependent with its source. The “speed” must refer something or frame, the naturally choose is Light Source frame that it stay with, if we do so, it is contradiction with SR postulation, if we do not choose the Light Source frame, according SR “independent”, then we can randomly choose any frame which may lead to many different result.

 

In my article I use the same rule as “stationary frame clock synchronization to move from one frame to another since the clock sync is "free from contradictions" in the any frame”. If clock sync each other, simplicity way is set them are all same.

 

I am not creating a new theory, I just point out the Newton or Galileo theory is correct.

I hope someone figure out what is wrong in my article, also appreciate make English correction in this article.

 

You did not use the above.

 

You proceeded with other logic not supported by frame to frame rules.

 

You never mentioned the clock sync and you are ad-hocing your argument.

 

From my POV, I can tell you do not understand how to pass from one frame to another using rules free from contradictions.

 

I read your paper and pointed out your error specifically.

 

In addition, the support of the evidence does not include Ritz's theory of ballistic light as a viable alternative.

 

Otherwise, we can proceed experiment by experiment and I will show you the ballistric theory of light has no support.

 

I will not do this in a mean way and certainly you have your say as we go.

[swansont]

I am not creating a new theory, I just point out the Newton or Galileo theory is correct.

 

But they are not correct, and we have experimental evidence to show it. An interferometer would show a fringe shift if the speed of light depended on the motion of the source relative to some absolute frame. Your contention is trivially falsified, which is one reason your original post was put in the trash can. If you want to falsify relativity you must point to an actual physical experiment which shows it to be wrong.

[Mr Skeptic]

Remember, science is not about "making sense", it is about predicting results. If you don't understand why it makes sense, no problem, you can still just use the math and predict results. If you reject predictive capability in favor of something that to you makes sense, you lose out on science's major advantage.

[xshen]

Give time, I'll reply you

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

1. The “speed” must refer some frame, without some frame, “speed” has no meaning. If say it’s speed always c for any frame, where the c v came from in SR derivation? I do not think the light speed c is the maximum speed for every physical evens. It is a physical infinite speed derivation from SR.

2. Derivation of the light speed from “Maxwell’s equation is c. Maxwell did not specify what frame relative is. Some time people mention the “speed” really refer to the earth. If Maxwell said the light speed relative for any frame, there is the same question as number 1.

3. The synchronize means every even (clock) run at the same rate of changing, just the initial values are different. So we can choose a standard clock for everywhere that not only synchronized but also simultaneously. In my article my conclusion is clock in all space are synchronized, only SR said the clock in move frame and the clock in stationary not synchronized, not me.

4. Some one said the SR can explain and predict some things. Following this reason, why need to create SR to replace Newton and Galileo theory, because they also explain and predict so many physical evens.

How to pass one frame to another frame. In my article, I followed Newton and Galileo rule. The SR also following the Newton and Galileo rule. Actual in my article, the rule and symbol even the first equations are the same as SR. The different is how to explain the path of the light beam.

The Ritz’s Theory of ballistic light. Here I just make a sample: Assuming a particular “gun” fire a bullet at a constant speed v. If you stay with “gun” frame, no mater this frame moving or not, it is always true, if you stay outside of the “gun” frame, it is not the same as v. lets continue this sample, there are two long train move departure each other, assuming one rear end aligned with other front, at this time, a bullet shoot between this two trains (all of three things are parallel), how does the observer in each train to describe the bullet movement if “gun” (frame) not mentioned?

 

P.S. why my topic marked as "moved"

Edited April 24, 2010 by xshen
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

1. The “speed” must refer some frame, without some frame, “speed” has no meaning. If say it’s speed always c for any frame, where the c v came from in SR derivation? I do not think the light speed c is the maximum speed for every physical evens. It is a physical infinite speed derivation from SR.

 

Here's an idea: take a speed of c, and add another speed less than or equal to c to it. What speed do you get?

 

2. Derivation of the light speed from “Maxwell’s equation is c. Maxwell did not specify what frame relative is. Some time people mention the “speed” really refer to the earth. If Maxwell said the light speed relative for any frame, there is the same question as number 1.

 

Since it's a law of physics, it applies to all frames. Or do the laws of physics depend on how fast someone thinks you're going?

 

3. The synchronize means every even (clock) run at the same rate of changing, just the initial values are different. So we can choose a standard clock for everywhere that not only synchronized but also simultaneously. In my article my conclusion is clock in all space are synchronized, only SR said the clock in move frame and the clock in stationary not synchronized, not me.

 

This might depend on how you define "synchronize" and "simultaneous".

 

4. Some one said the SR can explain and predict some things. Following this reason, why need to create SR to replace Newton and Galileo theory, because they also explain and predict so many physical evens.

 

Because Newtonian physics is only an approximation and fails when its assumptions don't apply. SR gives indistinguishable results as Newtonian physics at low speeds, and at high speeds the correct results.

[swansont]

2. Derivation of the light speed from “Maxwell’s equation is c. Maxwell did not specify what frame relative is. Some time people mention the “speed” really refer to the earth. If Maxwell said the light speed relative for any frame, there is the same question as number 1.

 

He did not specify a frame because it's true in all frames.

 

 

4. Some one said the SR can explain and predict some things. Following this reason, why need to create SR to replace Newton and Galileo theory, because they also explain and predict so many physical evens.

 

Predictions using Galilean transforms fail when v is an appreciable fraction of c.

 

 

P.S. why my topic marked as "moved"

 

Because the claim that SR is wrong with no physical evidence is the very epitome of speculation.

[Iggy]

Give time, I'll reply you

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

1. The “speed” must refer some frame, without some frame, “speed” has no meaning. If say it’s speed always c for any frame, where the c v came from in SR derivation? I do not think the light speed c is the maximum speed for every physical evens. It is a physical infinite speed derivation from SR.

2. Derivation of the light speed from “Maxwell’s equation is c. Maxwell did not specify what frame relative is. Some time people mention the “speed” really refer to the earth. If Maxwell said the light speed relative for any frame, there is the same question as number 1.

 

You didn't respond to the main point everyone is saying. You say that the speed of light is different in different inertial reference frames. Special relativity says that the speed of light is the same in any inertial reference frame. There is no debate. Experiments (like the Michelson-Morley experiment) have shown that the speed of light is the same in different reference frames.

 

3. The synchronize means every even (clock) run at the same rate of changing, just the initial values are different. So we can choose a standard clock for everywhere that not only synchronized but also simultaneously. In my article my conclusion is clock in all space are synchronized, only SR said the clock in move frame and the clock in stationary not synchronized, not me.

 

If you say it, it doesn't make it true. Experiments (like the Hafele-Keating experiment) show conclusively that clocks in different reference frames run at different rates.

 

Here I just make a sample: Assuming a particular “gun” fire a bullet at a constant speed v. If you stay with “gun” frame, no mater this frame moving or not, it is always true, if you stay outside of the “gun” frame, it is not the same as v. lets continue this sample, there are two long train move departure each other, assuming one rear end aligned with other front, at this time, a bullet shoot between this two trains (all of three things are parallel), how does the observer in each train to describe the bullet movement if “gun” (frame) not mentioned?

 

The bullet is not traveling c, so it will have a different velocity relative to and measured by people in different reference frames. Light will have the same velocity relative to and measured by anyone in any inertial reference frame.

 

If a train is moving away from you at velocity u and a person with a gun on that train shoots a bullet or a laser beam toward you and the person on the train measures the velocity of the bullet or laser beam relative to himself/herself at v, then you will measure the velocity of the bullet or laser beam relative to yourself at w:

 

[math]w=\frac{u-v}{1-\dfrac{uv}{c^2}}[/math]

 

The answer will be negative because the bullet or laser beam is moving toward you.

[ajb]

4. Some one said the SR can explain and predict some things. Following this reason, why need to create SR to replace Newton and Galileo theory, because they also explain and predict so many physical evens.

 

Special relativity has it roots in the fact that Maxwell's equations are not invariant under the Galilean group. It is invariant under the Poincaré group, which is fundamental in special relativity.

 

Without a way of relating inertial frames it is difficult to understand the electrodynamics of objects in motion.

[vuquta]

Give time, I'll reply you

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

1. The “speed” must refer some frame, without some frame, “speed” has no meaning. If say it’s speed always c for any frame, where the c v came from in SR derivation? I do not think the light speed c is the maximum speed for every physical evens. It is a physical infinite speed derivation from SR.

2. Derivation of the light speed from “Maxwell’s equation is c. Maxwell did not specify what frame relative is. Some time people mention the “speed” really refer to the earth. If Maxwell said the light speed relative for any frame, there is the same question as number 1.

3. The synchronize means every even (clock) run at the same rate of changing, just the initial values are different. So we can choose a standard clock for everywhere that not only synchronized but also simultaneously. In my article my conclusion is clock in all space are synchronized, only SR said the clock in move frame and the clock in stationary not synchronized, not me.

4. Some one said the SR can explain and predict some things. Following this reason, why need to create SR to replace Newton and Galileo theory, because they also explain and predict so many physical evens.

How to pass one frame to another frame. In my article, I followed Newton and Galileo rule. The SR also following the Newton and Galileo rule. Actual in my article, the rule and symbol even the first equations are the same as SR. The different is how to explain the path of the light beam.

The Ritz’s Theory of ballistic light. Here I just make a sample: Assuming a particular “gun” fire a bullet at a constant speed v. If you stay with “gun” frame, no mater this frame moving or not, it is always true, if you stay outside of the “gun” frame, it is not the same as v. lets continue this sample, there are two long train move departure each other, assuming one rear end aligned with other front, at this time, a bullet shoot between this two trains (all of three things are parallel), how does the observer in each train to describe the bullet movement if “gun” (frame) not mentioned?

 

P.S. why my topic marked as "moved"

 

 

GPS.

 

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/

 

See chapter 5.

 

If you are correct, then GPS does not work which is false.

[xshen]

It is clear that we argue “Light Speed is independent with the Light Source or not”. Let’s discuss more detail:

SR introduced a stationary frame, lets call O; a moving frame, call A, with speed relative to O is V1; and also introduced a special frame-Light Source frame, call L, with speed relative to A is V2. If “Light speed is independent to light source” is truth, then the L frame could be any speed relative to A under one condition: at initial time T=0, O,A and L overlay together, the rest situation will be exactly same discussion in SR. SR only discussed two special situations: V2=0 (rested with O frame), V2=V1 (rested with A frame). When analyzed time, SR used V2=V1 situation (1/2 total time=forward time), when analyzed speed and time relationship, used V2=0, this randomly choice also cause confusion. If V2≠0 and V2≠V1, after certain time, L could appear any location along x axis, it may appear at left of O, between O and A, at right of A, even right of B (A, B is the end of long bar in SR), question: How to choose the light path to create the equations as SR?

Many experiments shown the light speed is independent from light source, is this only way to explain such strange postulation? When Maxwell developed electrodynamics, many people believed that the ether exist, late proved it was wrong. Michelson-Morley experiment may easy explain that all equipments and light source stayed in the same frame. There are many article in cyber that disprove those experiments, I have no time and ability to study and make explanations here. I only focus the SR 2nd postulation problem. Assuming the SR just creates now and people try to understand or not agree with their fresh mind, what will you make decision?

[vuquta]

It is clear that we argue “Light Speed is independent with the Light Source or not”. Let’s discuss more detail:

SR introduced a stationary frame, lets call O; a moving frame, call A, with speed relative to O is V1; and also introduced a special frame-Light Source frame, call L, with speed relative to A is V2. If “Light speed is independent to light source” is truth, then the L frame could be any speed relative to A under one condition: at initial time T=0, O,A and L overlay together, the rest situation will be exactly same discussion in SR. SR only discussed two special situations: V2=0 (rested with O frame), V2=V1 (rested with A frame). When analyzed time, SR used V2=V1 situation (1/2 total time=forward time), when analyzed speed and time relationship, used V2=0, this randomly choice also cause confusion. If V2≠0 and V2≠V1, after certain time, L could appear any location along x axis, it may appear at left of O, between O and A, at right of A, even right of B (A, B is the end of long bar in SR), question: How to choose the light path to create the equations as SR?

Many experiments shown the light speed is independent from light source, is this only way to explain such strange postulation? When Maxwell developed electrodynamics, many people believed that the ether exist, late proved it was wrong. Michelson-Morley experiment may easy explain that all equipments and light source stayed in the same frame. There are many article in cyber that disprove those experiments, I have no time and ability to study and make explanations here. I only focus the SR 2nd postulation problem. Assuming the SR just creates now and people try to understand or not agree with their fresh mind, what will you make decision?

 

You did not handle scientific evidence.

 

3. The synchronize means every even (clock) run at the same rate of changing, just the initial values are different. So we can choose a standard clock for everywhere that not only synchronized but also simultaneously. In my article my conclusion is clock in all space are synchronized, only SR said

 

GPS.

 

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/

 

See chapter 5.

 

If you are correct, then GPS does not work which is false

 

Until you resolve this, what is there to talk about?

[swansont]

I only focus the SR 2nd postulation problem.

 

There is no 2nd postulate problem. A postulate is something assumed to be true; SR is derived under that assumption. If you want to show SR to be false, you have to either show an error in the derivation, or that there is experimental evidence which is inconsistent with the predictions.