On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity
Here is an email exchange about my paper “On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity” with the entire paper being found at: http://vixra.org/pdf/1502.0007v2.pdf
Here is one of the email exchanges I had with Matthias Grabiak.
Grabiak Email About Paper
On Monday, 10 April 2017, 3:05, Matthias Grabiak <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
while your mathematical derivations are all correct, I will still say that your interpretations are not justified. I have tried to address that in a few emails to you, but you still have not answered my most recent one.
Let me try to point out the problems I see. In the attached paper you are starting with an observer x1 and some time t1, and you are asking what the associated time ts is at a point xs=sx1. The problem with that is that you need to be clear what your understanding is of that “association”. First of all, by itself a point xs does not have particular time associated with it. Time is elapsing at the position xs, and a clock at xs will go through different readings t. If you have an event happening at position x1 when the local clock at x1 reads t1 you could certainly ask what the clock reading t is at xs that you would associate with that event at x1, t1. You are concluding the following:
Suppose an event occurs in the stationary system of observers K at x1 at associated time t1. Then according to all other observers xs in K the event occurs at ts ? t1.
This is based on your equation (3) requiring ts-vxs/c2=t1-vx1/c2 that you claim expresses this association, with the solution ts=t1+(s-1)vx1/c2 as in (4). The problem I see with your approach is to assume that there is a unique association between events at different positions. This is exactly what Special Relativity tells you you cannot do, and it is because you try to do it that you run into contradictions. Let’s go back for a bit. We can consider it an event that the clock at position x1 is reading some given time t1. At another position xs each clock reading t can be considered an event. The question is, which of those events (xs, t) is associated with (x1, t1), and what is the nature of that association? One obvious answer is, two events are associated if they are simultaneous. Under the assumption of absolute simultaneity the event (x1, t1) is associated with one and only one event (xs, t) with one specific clock reading t. However, according to Special Relativity there is no absolute simultaneity, only relative simultaneity according to the reference system used, based on equal clock readings of that reference system. For the system K this means that the reference clocks of K at both events have the same reading, which implies that (x1, t1) is associated with the event (xs, t1). This criterion of simultaneity is specific to K, and it is not shared by the system k. According to k two events at (x1, t1) and (xs, t) are associated if the clocks of k that are present at those events have the same clock readings t, and that is exactly what your equation (3) expresses. This is based on the first equation of (1), the transformation formula giving the time t of k given a position x in K and a reading t of the clock at x, asking what the reading is on a clock in k that is at x at the instant that the clock in K reads t.
In summary, what I see you trying to do is that you want to elevate the criterion of simultaneity according to k to absolute simultaneity, and that is where you get contradictions. But these contradictions do not mean that Special Relativity is inherently contradictory, it only means that you cannot have absolute simultaneity in Special Relativity.
You still don’t understand my paper, despite now conceding that my mathematics is sound. The arguments you adduce in defence of Special Relativity are based entirely upon Einstein’s demonstrably false assumption that systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers are consistent with the Lorentz Transformation. Putting forward Einstein’s false assumption in an attempt to refute my mathematical demonstration of the falsity of his assumption is illogical. The mathematical fact is that systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers are logically inconsistent with the Lorentz Transformation. Hence Special Relativity is bunkum – it cannot do what Einstein says it does or what he wants it to do. Therefore your arguments, precisely those that Einstein says his theory does, but proven it cannot do, do not carry any mathematical or scientific weight.
The issue is simple: Einstein assumed that systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers are consistent with the Lorentz Transformation; and he makes no distinction between time and his clocks because he ‘defined’ time by his fantastic clocks. First I set up by mathematical construction a system of stationary observers. I then apply the Lorentz Transformation. There is only one way it can be applied with logically consistency to this mathematical construction. It proves that the stationary system of observers cannot be clock-synchronised. Conversely, I set up by mathematical construction a system of clock-synchronised observers and apply the Lorentz Transformation. There is only one way it can be applied with logically consistency to this mathematical construction. It proves that all but one clock-synchronised observer cannot be stationary. Thus, Einstein’s mere assumption is proven false by mathematics, not by other assumptions or other hypotheses. His assumption, which he did not even realise he made and which none of his followers have realised either in the past 112 years of intellectual decrepitude, violates the conditions imposed by the Lorentz Transformation itself. In the latter section of my paper I highlight that Einstein’s alleged ‘system of observers’ is in fact only one observer in an infinite set of inequivalent observers, and an observer which he incorrectly lets speak for all observers in accord with his false assumption. No other observers in fact experience the same effects as his one observer.
As I have said before, it’s all over, bar the expected shouting from relativists.
PS. Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is false, hence Planck’s equation for thermal spectra is not universal. Thus, since 1859, physicists at large have never understood thermal emission, as their tedious textbooks attest. These facts prove the CMB another relativist fantasy, without having to write down a single equation from Einstein’s ‘Theory of Relativity’. Consequently, Big Bang cosmology is bunkum, proven by the physics of thermal emission.
Robitaille, P.-M., Crothers, S. J., “The Theory of Heat Radiation” Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck’s Claim of Universality, Progress in Physics, v. 11, p.120-132, (2015), http://vixra.org/pdf/1502.0007v2.pdf