Member

It is shown by simple algebraic arguments that independent measurements of the speed of light in different
reference frames would contradict the speed of light postulate if they could be connected by any velocity dependent transformation. This contradiction is the source of all the paradoxes that Relativity is littered with.

It is shown that an overall expansion of the universe would contradict the mass conservation law as the mass density would decrease everywhere in space. The Hubble law for the redshift of galaxies must therefore be explained by other, physical processes. See my page The Expansion of the Universe Debunked for more.

It is shown that Einstein?s derivation of the Lorentz transformation in his famous 1905 paper is logically and mathematically flawed. First it assumes that, in contradiction to the invariance of c, the speed of light can be used in the same sense as an additive quantity as for the speeds of material objects. In order to apparently compensate for this inconsistency, Einstein then uses flawed maths (e.g. incorrectly applying the chain rule for differentiation) to arrive at his Lorentz transformation formula. A correct mathematical treatment shows that a velocity dependent transformation can not exist if the speed of light is supposed to be invariant. See my web page Mathematical Flaws in Einstein?s ?On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies? for more.

It is shown that the result of Bell test photon correlation experiments can be explained in a purely semi-classical way if the detection process for the light signals is properly being modelled as a statistical stepwise photoionization process. See my web page Classical Interpretation of EPR- Bell Test Photon Correlation Experiments for more.

It is suggested that the observed  ?global? redshift of galaxies is caused by the light waves being stretched in the random electric microfields in the intergalactic plasma. See my web page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies for more.

It is shown that Einstein?s ?simple? algebraic derivation of the Lorentz transformation in his 1920 book ?Relativity: The Special and General Theory? is indeed algebraically inconsistent. Einstein uses two sets of equations that each initially hold only for either a positive or negative value of x,x?, but then he suddenly assumes that both sets hold for positive as well as negative values. Only this sign error enables him to arrive at the Lorentz transformation. See my web page Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein?s Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation for more.

 It is pointed out that the energy and momentum conservation laws (indeed the concepts of energy and momentum in the first place) have a strict basis only in classical, Newtonian physics, and that an application to phenomena outside classical physics (e.g. for electromagnetic waves) is not only unjustified but a contradiction in terms. A general underlying law of energy conservation (as postulated by Noether?s theorem) does therefore not exist. See my web page Energy and Momentum Conservation Laws in Physics for more.

It is shown that, contrary to the usual argument, a wave model for light can account for the short times required for photoionization if a correct dynamic model for the electron-wave interaction is used. On the other hand, a particle model can not account for the photoionization as the momentum and energy conservation laws would not allow the required energy transfer in the photon-electron collision. See my web page Wave and Particle Theory of Light applied to the Photoelectric Effect for more.