SR FLAW

The following scenario is meant as an introduction:

Two trains pass in the night. The passenger on neither train can see 
the tracks and neither can do anything inside a ten-minute interval to 
determine whether or not they are moving (unless you have an alternate 
proposal), but each can see the passenger on the other train through a 
peephole. The passenger on train A says that the passenger on train B 
is approaching at 120 mph, and the passenger on train B says the same 
thing about the passenger on train A. Which train is moving, which one 
is not moving, or which one is moving faster than the other one? 

Let's imagine that both trains are equipped with a spring scale, whose 
pointer shows zero when the train is stationary. Suppose that the pointer
of train A marks zero, meaning that train A is at rest wrt the track,
and that the pointer of train B marks a value <> 0, meaning that train B
is moving wrt the track.

Being at rest wrt the track, the clock of train A ticks at the same
rate as the clock of the track. Otoh, the clock of train B ticks at 
a rate, which is different from that of the track clock. Hence, the
clocks of train A and B don't tick at the same rate.

Let's now apply SR to this scenario, where trains A and B move 
relatively to each other at 120 mph.
 
According to SR, 

If two clocks are approaching each other the opposing 
clock may be considered as ticking more slowly (because 
of the gamma correction, assuming one can instantaneously 
view the clock from a distance) but is actually observed (via 
relatively slow lightpulses) to be ticking faster.

Iow, each clock considers that the opposing clock is ticking 
more slowly (or faster) by some factor (which is a function 
of their relative velocity). 
Logically, this means that the two clocks are ticking at the 
same rate.

But SR is wrong as, according to the scenario, clocks A and B
don't tick at the same rate.

Conclusively, SR is not applicable on trains moving on Earth.

The origin of this SR flaw lies in the PoR, which allows each observer
to consider himself to be at "REST" and thus his clock is ticking at 
the fastest rate compared to all the observed clocks moving wrt him.

Such SR assumption leads to the physical incoherence of the Lorentz 
transformation 
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which becomes obvious when using its 
equivalent form 
t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where 
tau = (x-vt)/v. 

Indeed, t/gamma and tau/gamma both imply that S' moves relatively 
to S, whereas tau*gamma implies that S moves relatively to S'. 
Clearly, the Lorentz time transformation is physically incoherent. 

In space, the equivalent of the track could be the CMBR (taking into
account the observed dipole due to the Earth's overall motion).
One could claim that a clock A at rest wrt the CMBR ticks at the same
rate as a theoretical CMBR clock, hence that a clock B moving wrt
the CMBR ticks at a different rate than clock A.

Tho who disagree should meditate on this reference from 
Patrick Reany:

Reany

Einstein and Infeld said: 

     There still remains one point to be cleared up. 
     One of the most fundamental questions has not 
     been settled yet: does an inertial system exist? 
     We have learned something about the laws of nature, 
     their invariance with respect to the Lorentz 
     transformation, and their validity for all inertial systems 
     moving uniformly, relative to each other. We 
     have the laws but do not know the frame to which 
     to refer them. [Found in: The Evolution of Physics, 
     p. 209.] 

Using rockets instead of trains, the SR solution remains false
when one rocket is at rest wrt the CMBR, and the other is moving
wrt the CMBR. Thus, SR is no more applicable in space than on Earth.

John Baez wrote in

Baez

In particular, any experiment in which the effects of gravitation 
are important is outside the domain of SR.

This is true, but using the CMBR as the reference rest frame shows
that SR also leads to a false conclusion in space.

John Baez added:  

In many cases (e.g. most optical and elementary-particle experiments 
on the rotating earth's surface) these errors are vastly smaller 
than the experimental resolution, and SR can be accurately applied.

John Baez doesn't tell that the path of elementary particles moving 
on Earth at high velocities is controlled by strong magnetic and/or 
electric fields which, among others, take into account the so-called 
relativistic mass increase.

But does such mass increase need SR to be explained? 

Read for instance at

Tedenstig

"MASS INCREASE

As here discussed  before in examining this theory, the  mass
increasing phenomenon, if interpreted as such effect, was dis-
covered  by  experiment with cathode rays so early as in 1901.
Hence, the phenomenon was not predicted by the theory of rela-
tivity but was enclosed in the theory some years later. Before
that several other scientists had developed  the  experimental
results as well as presented mathematical  expressions  for it
being the same as in Einstein's theory. The physical reason to
the mass increase phenomenon may be discussed, but there is no
reason to interpret it as an  effect of relativistic concepts."  

N.B.: About the origin of E = mc^2, see

Origin mc^2

Many critics have been raised against SR. Some of them are
not pertinent, but others deserve close consideration. See

page3

And also

Babin

Restricted Relativity
A Detailed Account of the Main Objections
By Ali A. Faraj

Excerpt:

"7. General Remarks 

The representation of Einstein's theory in the form of postulates 
and deductions, has some resemblance to the method employed in 
Euclid's geometry. This similarity, however, is superficial. 
The Euclidean method is strictly top-down and deductive. Take 
for granted Euclid's axioms, and the consequences follow by logical 
necessity. This is not the case with the Einsteinian postulates. 
Unlike the axioms, these postulates are not at the top of the 
conceptual hierarchy. They are not simple, abstract, or self-evident. 
Furthermore, Einstein's postulates require modifications of space 
and time. Because these concepts are higher and more general than 
the postulates of relativity and constancy, the required reformulation 
can be done only by induction. Thus, by Euclidean standards, the 
representation above is upside down. This upside-down method is 
the main cause for making arbitrary decisions by Einstein at every 
turn in his theory [Rudakov, 1981]."

Marcel Luttgens

Sep. 27, 2005.



muttgens@spamorange.fr

Back Home Page