Mathematical Obscurities in Special Relativity

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />123,

Talking about crazy ideas in science? Have a look at crazy ideas: [url] pup.princeton.edu/titles/7022.html [/url]

Crazy idea number 8: "Time travel exists"

The SR community keeps contradicting themselves. By taking a faster than light particle as a crazy idea number 9, they somehow imply that SR is valid, yet they think time travel is crazy. Logic has been abandoned from day one.

Crazy idea number 9: "Faster-than-Light Particles Exist."

Sorry, but should SR be on the list as well? They already assume that time travel and length contractions have been accepted as common sense science. Moreover, the graviton model is dead according to this crazy idea.

Crazy idea number 10: "There Was No Big Bang."

Yeah right, the Big-Bang has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.


I think I'm going crazy [xx(]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

SR definitely should be on the list. Relativity of simultaneity
is crap. Just go back to Einstein's 1905 paper and you'll see
that the whole notion was based on the propogation delay
of light. SR observers always observe c independent
of their motion until they
are trying to argue that simultaneity is relative- then
they see the light as c+v and c-v.

You can prove anything if you changed your assumptions in
the middle of your argument.

Jan, I think you have done a very good job. I am going to study this argument in detail. I have also come up with similar proofs. I think that the main problem is that the transformations are not bijective, ie one to one, and that this is the main reason to reject the theory as flawed. In fact this is pretty much the basis of Dingle's refutation. Dingle discovered that there were two contradictory solutions to the problem of the rate of a moving clock. One said the clock runs fast the other said it runs slow. Now Dingle said both can not be the correct answer, so the theory is false and is refuted. The problem arises because the Lorentz transformation is not bijective. The Lorentz and inverse Lorentz transformations give opposite and inconsistent predictions. So the theory is mathematically flawed just as Dingle said way back in 1962.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />Jan, I think you have done a very good job. I am going to study this argument in detail. I have also come up with similar proofs. I think that the main problem is that the transformations are not bijective, ie one to one, and that this is the main reason to reject the theory as flawed. In fact this is pretty much the basis of Dingle's refutation. Dingle discovered that there were two contradictory solutions to the problem of the rate of a moving clock. One said the clock runs fast the other said it runs slow. Now Dingle said both can not be the correct answer, so the theory is false and is refuted. The problem arises because the Lorentz transformation is not bijective. The Lorentz and inverse Lorentz transformations give opposite and inconsistent predictions. So the theory is mathematically flawed just as Dingle said way back in 1962.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


I never saw Dingle's refutation. However, I'm afraid that I need to disagree on this argument, because the map T(v) <b>is</b> bijective by construction for all v. This can be confirmed by checking the rank of the associated matrix of T(v) for all values of v.

May I recommend any symbolic mathematics package to do this? Mathematica and Maple are very good software packages to manipulate virtually all math expressions to your liking. If it so happens that your are a Linux zealot (like me), then I can highly recommend MuPAD, great math package for zero dollars.

I must conclude that rank T(v) = 4 = dim(S) = dim(S') for 0&lt;=v&lt;c.

As much as I would like to see SR going out of the window, the bijectivity is as advertised. Tom can confirm this without any doubt.

My proposition only shows that T(v) cannot send arbitrary curves x(t) from S into S' invariantly, or vice versa. In this sense, the Lorentz Transformation is flawed. However, if T(v) is only required to map photons from one space to the other, then the Lorentz Transformation works as advertised, meaning that the curve x =c*t is invariant.

Jan, I think that you presented some very good points. I have one comment. When someone tells you that you negledted distant simultaniety that means you won the discussion. The other person has no really good answer. That's what is meant by this. It is a code word used by relativists to confuse the other person. When this is mentioned it means that they have no logical reason to say you are wrong. They just begin to babble at this point.

kc3mx,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />Jan, I think that you presented some very good points. I have one comment. When someone tells you that you negledted distant simultaniety that means you won the discussion. The other person has no really good answer. That's what is meant by this. It is a code word used by relativists to confuse the other person. When this is mentioned it means that they have no logical reason to say you are wrong. They just begin to babble at this point.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Absolutely. You have stressed one particular point that makes SR too hot to handle: Whenever people come up with well-defined arguments on possible shortcomings and contradiction in SR, the relativists use their simultaneity "card" to confuse and paralyze the discussion. Simultaneity is their "atomic bomb" among arguments.

In the past hunderd years, countless individuals have opposed SR and pointed out deep physical problems with the theory. Unfortunately, many of those arguments did prove wrong, but there are still many open questions that need answers.


No matter what arguments we put forward, the best way to disprove SR is through experiments. What we need is an experiment such that SR does not provide correct numerical quantities. Perhaps we can find some of these experiments in the field of electrodynamics and magnetism.

The only mathematical obscurity I can find in SR, is the invariance of curves x(t) in S or vice versa. The Lorentz Transformation only maps the curve x=c*t invariantly. But SR applies to any space-temporal event concerning electromagnetic radiation. This is dubious at any rate.

I think you are confused. If the Lorentz transform is bijective then why is there confusion? There would be no paradoxes and no controversy. So something is wrong with the mathematics and not with the critics or their arguments. It is a simple matter to answer the criticisms if the theory is correct, but since there is something wrong, then there there must be a problem. When you transform S into S' and then from S' into S the results are not the idenity. So the transformations are not bijective. This is the essence of the paradoxes of relativity which have not been resolved.

Dingle used this to show that there were two different predictions using the theory. He showed that the theory predicts that a moving clock runs fast using one mathematical solution and that using another solution that it runs slow. So there are two different solutions to the same problem. He asked the relativity community to explain which solution was the correct solution. No answer was given or has ever been given to this problem. So the Lorentz transform does not give unique answers. That means it is not one-to-one.