Problems with Special Relativity

[JohnMartin]

14) The Problem of Universal Quasi Idealism within Special relativity.

Idealism is the theory that historically followed upon with Descartes understanding of knowledge, whereby the knower creates the object known. For example, in knowing the tree, the knower creates the tree.
Idealism is false, for the knower does not create the tree, but receives the form of the tree, from the tree as the object of knowledge.
Also Descarte's version of knowledge whereby the knower only knows an idea of the tree and not the tree, is also false.
For the tree is known objectively, through the idea, as the formal concept, whereby the tree is presented as an object of knowledge.
Descarte's theory of knowledge as a quasi idealist theory, whereby the tree as known, is reduced down to the act of the observer, is false.

So too analogously, special relativity reduces the motion of light to an absolute for any circumstance.
The earth centered universe of the ancients is transformed into the light centered universe of relativity theory.
In reducing the universe from earth centered, to light centered, relativity reduces the universe to an observer centered universe, whereby the entire universe of the individual conforms to the individual's motion.
One can introduce, or remove the aether at will, as postulated by SR and GR respectively.
One can postulate length change and time dilation at will to conform to the observer who sees light
The light is seen by the observer at c, when not in an accelerating reference frame, but at any velocity, when in an accelerating reference frame.
In effect, all physics in the universe is dictated mathematically by the ubiquitous observer.
In reducing all the maths of physical reality down to that of the observer, it is the observer who (almost) creates the object observed, whereby the object known is subject to the mathematical manipulation of the observer.
In doing so, the knower modifies the object of knowledge from the real, down to what is dictated by relativity theory.
Such a manipulation of the object of knowledge is a form of quasi idealism.
As quasi idealism is false, therefore because relativity is quasi idealist, then so too relativity is false.

15) The Problem of the loss of Absolute Length within Special relativity.

SR removes the ether and replaces the notion of absolute length with a measured length by the observer.
But length measured by the observer, varies with the observers motion.
Hence two observers viewing two identical objects, will see each object as smaller than each object's absolute length.
Yet both observer's know that each object is identical in length.
Therefore the observed length is always shorter than the real length.
Therefore according to SR, all observations of lengths are fictional, contrary to the principle of identity, L=L,
Hence according to SR, observation is always at variance from a fundamental principle of being.

16) The Problem of the maximum velocity of c within Special relativity.

Two bodies approach each other.
Body 1 moves east at 0.75 c, and body 2 moves west at 0.75 c.
Logic dictates that an observer in body 1 will see body 2 move past body 1 at 1.5c.
Yet SR says no observer will ever see any motion greater than c in a non accelerated reference frame.
Evidently, the SR limit of velocity to a maximum of c is invalidated by the simple thought experiment.
The observer in object 1 would see the true relative velocity of object 2, yet SR wold calculate the relative objects velocity to be less than c.

17) The Problem of Special Pleading within Special relativity.

Similar to the previous problem, two bodies approach each other.
Body 1 moves east at 0.75 c, and body 2 moves west at 0.75 c.
Logic dictates that an observer in body 1 will see body 2 move past body 1 at 1.5c.
Yet SR says no observer will ever see any motion greater than c in a non accelerated reference frame.
Evidently, the SR limit of velocity to a maximum of c is invalidated by the simple thought experiment.
To avoid this problem, the true velocities of body 1 and body 2 must be removed from the discussion, and reduced to the velocities as dictated by SR theory.
But to remove the true velocities is to special plead velocities of each body, down to what is dictated by a theory, made apart from logic and experience.
In effect SR must remove the earth and all common experience of motion around the earth to transform its adherents into an imaginary world of mathematics, whereby bodies, time and velocities do what the postulates and maths dictate they must do.
Hence SR theory is a case of special pleading, made apart from common sense experience.


18) The Problem of the Implied Guess Work Required within Special relativity.

SR reduces all motion down to the observer.
And the observer is moving relative to the observed object.
Yet the observer exists within the universe.
Hence the observer must be moving at many different velocities relative to many different objects.
So because the observer's motion is unknown relative to all moving objects, then the observers motion within the universe is unknowable.
As the observers motion is unknowable, then consequently, the observed motions as related back to the observer are then unknowable.
Yet SR proposes that such motions as observed by the observer are knowable.
Hence the implied unavailability of motion within SR theory makes the theory unworkable.

19) The Problem the Implied Universal benchmark of motion following upon the problem of the implied guess work required within Special relativity.

According to SR, as shown above, there is an implied unknowability of the observers motion within the universe.
Hence for the observer to observe any motion, the problem of the observers motion must be overcome, and thereby established as a known velocity.
But to know a velocity, means to know a velocity in itself, which means to refer velocity back to a universal bench mark velocity.
Yet SR theory denies that such a bench mark exists within the universe.
Hence for SR theory to be workable, the theory must imply an absolute bench mark, of zero velocity, which is denied within its own principles.
Hence for SR theory to be workable, and applicable in the real, the theory must in act contradict its principle in theory.
Hence SR theory, when applied, involves at least one contradiction concerning the nature of motion as known.

20) The Problem of the Twin Paradox within Special relativity.

The twin paradox concludes to both twins being older than each other.
Yet such a paradox only implies a contradiction within SR theory, as two clocks cannot both run faster, or slower than each other.
Hence the twin paradox is a manifestation of a contradiction within SR theory.
Hence SR theory is false.

21) The Problem of light fired from a moving object within Special relativity.

An object moves at c.
Then a laser is fired from the moving object.
According to SR the laser will be seen as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest.
Yet, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience, or according to Maxwell's equations. (See - Turner and Hazelett, The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, p 136.)
Hence SR theory is at odds with Maxwell's equations and experience.

JM

[JohnMartin]

So relativity is invalidated because I own a watch? This is definitely one of your nuttiest.

See if you can determine any means to detect time dilation as recorded in a physical clock. You wont be able to do it in the local frame.

JM

[JohnMartin]

22) The Problem of Maths Models that do not infer Physical Models as required within Special relativity.

Physical theory must have mathematical structure and a correlation between math symbols and observable quantities.
Therefore what is mathematically possible does not correlate to what is physically possible.
The maths of four dimensional space that purports to account for logical problems of simultaneous clocks being both faster and slower than each other within SR, is analogous to a+b=c, whereby 8 apples come from 6, as modeled in four dimensional space.
The four dimensional space does not resolve the clock problem, just as 8 from 6 is not resolved by the same geometry of four dimensional space.
As SR requires mathematics that does not correspond to physical reality, there is no evidence within physical reality that SR models the real in any way, whatsoever.
As SR is unverifiable, for it requires he use f four dimensional space, which is not experienced in the real, then SR is not a realist theory.

23) The Problem of constancy and variability of ratio within Special relativity.

Clocks A and B run at a constant rate.
Hence the ratio of clock rate A/B = 1.
This rate is constant.
Yet according to the transforms, clock B ticks a a different rate when observed at A.
Then A/B not =1.
Hence within SR the clock are are two rates, even though each clock rate is constant.

24) The Problem of Choice of clock tick Rate within Special relativity.

Following upon problem 23, if the ratio A/B = 1, and not 1,
what means is there to determine which ratio applies to each observer and why?
SR does not tell us which ratio to use, hence the ratio selection is arbitrary.
But what is arbitrary is not natural, nor experienced.
Therefore SR is not natural, nor experienced.
Hence the arbitrary nature of SR is unrealistic.

25) The Problem of determining the valid set of events within Special relativity.

Following upon problem 23 and 24, there are no means specified within SR to determined what readings on the clocks are valid and what are not.
Hence the observer does not know if A/B = 1, or not = 1, are valid.
Hence SR theory is indeterminate with regard to clock tick rate.
Hence SR theory cannot arrive at any certain conclusions regarding clock tick rates.
Hence the inbuilt uncertainty within SR theory means the theory is unworkable.

26) The Problem of the lack of experimental evidence consistent with Special relativity.

SR postulates that observers in relative motion will obtain the same results from physical measurements.
But no experiment of this kind has ever been performed (See - Essen, The Special Theory of Relativity, A critical Analysis, pp 9, 17-20).
As SR has not successfully been tested experimentally, with respect to observers in relative motion will obtain the same results from physical measurements then SR is not applicable to science.
Hence SR is not a theory applicable to science.

27) The Problem of the Arbitrary Nature of Simultaneity within Relativity.

The definition of simultaneity is stated by Einstein as being both arbitrary and unverfiable. (See Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, 1961, ch 7, p 23.)
Simultaneity has also been critiqued as being illogical and mathematically untenable. (See Arthur Lynch, The Case Against Einstein, 1932, pp 120-30).
As simultaneity within relativity theory is false then relativity theory is false.

28) The Problem of the Lack of Resolution within Special Relativity.

If according to a thought experiment, points A and B are in the coordinate system K.
A and B are synchronous.
Clock A then moves at v towards B.
Then at B, clocks A and B no longer synchronize, but clock A lags clock B by 1/2 t v²/c²
where t is the time of the journey from A to B.
The same result holds good when the clock at A moves to B via a polygonal line, and also when A and B coincide.
Hence B is chosen over A, without any means within SR theory to determine which point to chose, and which to exclude. (See Science at the Cross Roads, pp 185-86).
Its as though the adherent of SR can stand outside the theory and arbitrarily chose which point, and thereby be the sole arbiter of what is occurring, without any principle within SR to specify such an action can be taken by the observer.
Therefore SR theory is arbitrary.

29) The Problem of the Lack of Specification within Special Relativity.

SR does not specify a means to determine which clock is moving and which is stationary.
Therefore both clocks A and B are both faster and slower than the other, depending on the arbitrary choice of motion.
As motion is undetermined and it is not possible to distinguish between clocks A and B, then the theory contains an impossibility.
As the theory is impossible, then the theory is not scientific.

30) The Problem of Psychological Denial within the Academy following upon the acceptance of Special Relativity.

The many problems with SR have been exposed on this thread and many other publications.
Yet SR is promoted as a viable theory by the academy.
Therefore the academy is in a state of denial about the viability of SR.
Hence SR, as a psychological/rhetorical sophistry, has caused many to embrace a theory that is false.
Thereby causing many to fall into a state of psychological denial about an accepted theory within physics.


31) The Problem of variable views on the nature of inertia as related to Relativity.

The variability of views concerning inertia produces different results in thought experiments concerned with relative motion which cannot be resolved by relativity theory.
If the cosmos contained only two space ships, A and B. Ship A turns on its rockets and does a round trip, back to B. Would the two previously synchronized clocks in ships A and B remain synchronised? The answer depends on whether you embrace Eddington's view of inertia, or the Machian view of Dennis Sciamia. In Eddington's view, the answer is yes. . . from Sciamia's view, the answer is no. (See Sciamia, Relativity for the Million, p 124).
As Relativity is indeterminate with regard to the nature of inertia, the theory cannot account for relative motion.
Hence relativity is a theory that requires guess work, and is therefore unscientific.

JM

[JohnMartin]

18) The Problem of the Implied Guess Work Required within Special relativity.

SR reduces all motion down to the observer.
And the observer is moving relative to the observed object.
Yet the observer exists within the universe.
Hence the observer must be moving at many different velocities relative to many different objects.
So because the observer's motion is unknown relative to all moving objects, then the observers motion within the universe is unknowable.
As the observers motion is unknowable, then consequently, the observed motions as related back to the observer are then unknowable.
Yet SR proposes that such motions as observed by the observer are knowable.
Hence the implied unavailability of motion within SR theory makes the theory unworkable.

JM

18) is amended as shown below -

18) The Problem of the Implied Guess Work Required within Special relativity.

SR reduces all motion down to the observer.
And the observer is moving relative to the observed object.
Yet the observer exists within the universe.
Hence the observer must be moving at many different velocities relative to many different objects.
So because the observer's motion is unknown relative to all moving objects, then the observers motion within the universe is unknowable.
As the observers motion is unknowable, then consequently, the observed motions as related back to the observer are then unknowable.
Yet SR proposes that such motions as observed by the observer are knowable.
Hence the implied unavailability unknowability of motion within SR theory makes the theory unworkable.

JM

[JohnMartin]

31) The Problem of variable views on the nature of inertia as related to Relativity.

The variability of views concerning inertia produces different results in thought experiments concerned with relative motion which cannot be resolved by relativity theory.
If the cosmos contained only two space ships, A and B. Ship A turns on its rockets and does a round trip, back to B. Would the two previously synchronized clocks in ships A and B remain synchronised? The answer depends on whether you embrace Eddington's view of inertia, or the Machian view of Dennis Sciamia. In Eddington's view, the answer is yes. . . from Sciamia's view, the answer is no. (See Sciamia, Relativity for the Million, p 124).
As Relativity is indeterminate with regard to the nature of inertia, the theory cannot account for relative motion.
Hence relativity is a theory that requires guess work, and is therefore unscientific.

JM

32) The Problem of no verification of SR's version of rest within Special Relativity.

Special Relativity removes the absolute rest frame of Newtonian absolute space and the absolute stationary earth of geostatism.
Absolute rest is then replaced in SR by the transforms relative to the observer, whereby light is always at c for all observers,
the universal value of light at c infers the transformed d/t between observers is itself a universal mathematical transform based standard of rest.
Yet nowhere within SR is such a universal value of the transformed d/t ever proven to be real, nor demonstrate to be able to be real.
Nor can any experiment provide evidence for such a transformed universal benchmark of rest be given, for such a transformed rest is only ever that of the mathematical and not produced by physical phenomena (see the problem of maths not inferring physics above).
Hence SR proposes to replace the absolute rest of other models, with its own universal, mathematical transform based, standard of rest, which cannot be verified by reason or experiment.

33) The Problem of light as the dictator of space and time within Special Relativity.

SR removes the absolute rest of other models.
SR promotes light at c from all reference frames.
Light at c is dependent upon a space-time continuum, which modifies both distance and time for light to be at c.
Hence light determines the behavior of distance and time between observers.
Hence d/t is determined by c.
Yet common experience says length d, and time t, are both independent of light at c.
Hence SR arbitrarily makes light a dictator of length and time, contrary to common experience and common sense.

34) The Problem of light removing the possibility of any physical object from being at rest within Special Relativity.

As light is always at c =d/t, which dictates d and t within SR, then any object cannot be observed to be at rest.
For the object will always have its location and velocity of zero, determined by the observer, who is moving,
whereby the observer will apparently see the object moving when subject to the SR transforms.
Hence from the nature of the SR equations, no body can be observed as being at rest within the universe.
Yet within SR there is no means to prove that a body cannot or is not at rest with relation to the rest of the universe.
Hence SR assumes the entire universe, with all its parts, is always either moving, or at least observed to be moving.
Hence SR systematically excludes an object at rest as being impossible.
As SR concludes to such, SR is biased against the notion of a stationary object,
Yet such bias is never proven from the nature of motion.
Hence SR theory is artificial and cannot be trusted to measure nature.
For an object, or perhaps several objects may be at rest, but always observed to be moving by observers.
Hence SR may gives false evidence for the motion of bodies, when in fat the body, or bodies are stationary.

35) The Problem of the Avoidance of the Implied Embarrassment assumed as a premise within Special Relativity.

SR assumes the earth is moving.
Hence when an interferometer experiment returns a fringe shift of near null result, the data is interpreted by the academy to show light is at c in a inertial reference frame.
Yet the method implies a premise of the avoidance of embarrassment, for the theory 1) reduces the near null result to a null result, and 2) assumes the only explanation for the data is light is at c in any inertial frame, for the earth must be moving.
Yet both 1) and 2) are actions taken by the academy to remove any embarrassment over the possibility that the earth is actually stationary.
Hence SR is based in part upon implied, and/or assumes a premise of avoiding embarrassment.
As such a premise is merely subjective, then SR is merely a maths theory that cloaks the subjective disposition of the academy to interpret the interferometer results in a manner from principles other than the assumed earth motion.
As SR is constructed to avoid embarrassment, the theory is not scientific.
Hence the theory should be abandoned.

36) The Problem of the nature of distance within Special Relativity contrary to Big Bang Cosmology.

SR says lengths between observers shrink as determined by the transform equations.
Yet Big Bang cosmology says lengths between many bodies, (the galaxies) all over the universe increase all the time.
Hence SR is routinely contrary to Big Bang cosmology as dictated by Hubble's law.
Therefore if Big Bang cosmology is correct, SR is invalid
And if SR is correct, then Big Bang cosmology is invalid.
Yet the academy embraces both theories.

37) The Problem of the Unique claims within Special Relativity.

SR makes the claims of light at c, length contraction and time dilation.
All these claims are unique to SR theory.
The only evidence for such claims is a thought experiment, some maths, and some experimental evidence, which relativist think provides evidence for the theory.
Yet because the theory proposes special claims about the nature of light and what can be observed, the theory should be able to provide a detailed proof of its claims within the theory, and have those proofs applied in experiments.
Yet the theory never proves light is at c, lengths contract and time dilates.
And subsequently any claim by relativists that experimental evidence supports the theory is only a claim made without proof and hence without certitude regarding he nature of light, distance and time.
Hence any experiment evidence may not be evidence at all for the theory, for nobody knows if the experiments performed actually physically act to have light at c, lengths contract and time dilate.
Such is only assumed as an explanation for experimental results, yet never known as the only correct explanation for such experiments.
Hence SR makes unique claims, but never proves those claims, nor ever provides any experimental evidence for said claims whereby the evidence provides any certitude concerning the physics acting only the way SR says it must act.
Hence SR is sadly lacking any special evidence for its special claims.

JM

[Yttrium]

JM, I think your lengthy list of problems with relativity can be summed up with two points:

1. It implies that there is no absolute frame of reference, which violates your belief that an absolute frame of reference (geocentrism) is revealed in the Bible.

2. It doesn't make common sense.
It's true, it doesn't. There are other things that don't make common sense, such as quantum tunneling. The universe is a strange place. We observe these things and do the best we can with them. You have plenty of company in having a hard time wrapping your head around relativity. It's common to have difficulty with things that violate common sense.

[JohnMartin]

JM, I think your lengthy list of problems with relativity can be summed up with two points:

1. It implies that there is no absolute frame of reference, which violates your belief that an absolute frame of reference (geocentrism) is revealed in the Bible.

This is part of it. But there are also arguments from reason that conclude to the problematic nature of SR claims. All motion is relative according to SR. Where is the proof for this? Nowhere. Hence the theory is very weak. For all we know all motion is absolute. Hoe can that be proven otherwise?

2. It doesn't make common sense.

It's true, it doesn't. There are other things that don't make common sense, such as quantum tunneling. The universe is a strange place. We observe these things and do the best we can with them. You have plenty of company in having a hard time wrapping your head around relativity. It's common to have difficulty with things that violate common sense.

No, SR is against reason and experimental evidence and shown in posts above. Man is a rational animal and as such, should only conclude to that which is true in accord with reason. As SR is against reason, it should be abandoned.

As it is against revelation it also should be abandoned.

JM