Special Relativity Is Refuted

This link shows if the spherical light wave propagates away from the unprimed frame at c, then based on calculus, there are regions of space in which the spherical light wave propagates toward the primed origin contradicting the light postulate in the primed frame.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0002v1.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Too stupid for words.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This was demonstrated long ago here on the SciForums.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The poster presented math.
What math is incorrect?

 

So, what math is incorrect in the article?

 

You used math to contradict the postulate. Since geometry, including hyperbolic geometry is self-consistent, the error belongs to the author. It is self-refuting, self published tripe.

 

So, what math is incorrect.

The article is very specific with the math and you are very smart.

Therefore, you can PROVE the math false.

How long will that take?

 

Did I mention the article used calculus?

Sometimes I forget things.

Cording to calculus, if the SLW propagates away from the unprimed origin, it must propagate toward the primed origin given the examples.

Are you claining calculus is false?

 

Calculus isn't false, but the way this guy's trying to apply it is what's wrong. The partial derivative \(\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x}\) is incorrectly calculated on the assumption that the \(y\) component of the light pulse's position can be varied independently of \(x\), contradicting the spherical wave postulate which was used to substitute \(t\to\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}\). Didn't bother reading the remainder of the paper, because this kind of faulty logic is crap.

 

The partial deriative can be complicated.

But, it holds y and z fixed and calculates the derivative therefrom.

The partial derivative is correct in the paper.

Try again.

 

No, it's not complicated at all, certainly not the example you provided. Standard first week freshman material.

The paper already assumes a spherical light wave, which means \(y\) is constrained to be proportional to \(x\), which means no, they can't be independently varied. By your logic you could also treat \(t\) as an independent variable, and then you'd get \(\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x}=1\), which would be ridiculous.

You should have checked the math with us first before wasting your time writing up all that LaTeX.

 

I think I used incorrect English.
Special Relativity was refuted long ago, here on the SciForums.

 

Uh, I see you are confused.

Y and z are fixed.

Now, can you refute y and z fixed that |x'| decreases as negative with x increasing with the SLW between the origins?

 

How?

 

Then it's no longer a spherical wave- the relation \(t=\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}\) doesn't hold for fixed \(y,z\) unless you set \(y=z=0\) for all times, and if the light pulse propagates directly along the x-axis, then it's a basic result that the pulse will be moving at \(c\) in the same direction in both frames.

 

Watch Motor Daddy's posts and my posts.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=101682&highlight=Special+Relativity
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107365
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107162&highlight=Special Relativity
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107854&highlight=Special Relativity
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107893&highlight=Special Relativity
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107191&highlight=Special Relativity
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106667&highlight=Special Relativity

 

the two "scientists" hard at work .

 

Two cranks spinning in the same direction.

 

Admitting that I have not read the whole of the paper, if this were a court of law the proper response would be, "Assumes facts not in evidence".

An initial issue, at least from the Abstract, is that the paper is addressing the situation from within the context of special relativity, which is consistent with a frame of reference that is a flat 4-D Minkowski space time, consistent with special relativity. While even a few years ago we could have assumed that the conclusions drawn from such a perspective were valid, on their own merit. That is not entirely the case today.

It has always been assumed, that general relativity reduces to consistency with Newtonian dynamics locally. This because within the known margins of error Newton's field equations represent a good description of local space. General relativity becomes dominant only in the case of the proximity of "strong" gravitational fields.

The recent results from the GP-B experiment demonstrate that space is curved and dynamic even under gravitational condition traditionally considered to be dominated by Newtonian dynamics. This suggests that instead of general relativity reducing to Newtonian dynamics locally, it is more likely Newton's field equations provide a close approximation of Einstein's field equations, locally.

Since we know know now know that space is locally dynamic, we also know that it is nowhere truly completely Newtonian. Beginning the exploration of a model such as has been put forward within the confines of special relativity is by far an easier task than jumping right into the more complicated field equation and space-time of GR. However, in light of the proofs provided by the GP-B experiment, until the assumptions and conclusions have been verified from the perspective of GR, they can no longer be assumed to be a proof.

This really bothers me personally. However, GP-B has proven that space is locally curved and because of the nature of light we can no longer assume that, in the case of light space and space-time are anywhere anything other than relativistic.

Does this sound like garbage? In some ways it does really bother me, personally. But it does seem that we can no longer treat SR and a flat 4-D Minkowski space time as anything other than a locally close approximation of GR rather than the other way around.

Beyond all this, the paper cited and its conclusions are not consistent with experience.