Last year , a friend posted to his blog a brief excerpt of an NPR radio show which pitted a Special Relativity challenger against one of its supporters. During the introduction, the reporter mentioned a test developed by a UC Riverside mathematician. This test, The Crackpot Index , is a combination of satire and seriousness. In reality, it highlights a number of common pitfalls that are repeatedly made by those challenging the establishment. If you score too high on this test, you will be labeled a Crackpot.
Archive for February, 2009
Revised: Sept. 24, 2011
A case against Relativity theory requires several elements. First, there has to be an alternative model – such as Modern Classical Mechanics – that explains things with better accuracy than Relativity theory. Second, the alternative model should support physical behaviors (that are prohibited by Relativity theory); which are then experimentally confirmed. An example of this could be found in the recently announced CERN experiment where they have found sub-atomic particles traveling faster than the speed of light. Such a prediction is supported by Modern Classical Mechanics, but prohibited by Relativity theory.
The CERN experimental findings go hand-in-hand with the findings of mathematical and conceptual mistakes in Einstein’s work. Now, these mistakes are very difficult to find, especially when you consider that Relativity makes some very good predictions. But, we now have cases where Modern Classical Mechanics makes better predictions and, in the case of the CERN experiment, supports an experimental finding that Relativity theory says is not possible.
Episode 23 introduces Modern Classical Mechanics. We also discussed the nuances between it and Relativity theory that result in the latter needing concepts like Time Dilation, Length Contraction, and the Twin Paradox. We also review a conceptual mistake where Einstein talks about about time, without realizing that he is really talking about length. Imaging the mistakes you might make if you look at your ruler, but think you’re looking at your watch!
As indicated in Episode 20, wavelength is commonly misstated as a measure (e.g., meters) when, in fact, it should be correctly stated as a rate (e.g., meters per cycle). This is a significant conceptual and mathematical problem in Einstein’s work.
Most people would know a circle when you see one, and you’d be able to tell it apart from an oval. But if you don’t treat the math equation in just the right way, you might think that you have a circle when you really have an oval. This is essentially the mistake Einstein makes in his proof that establishes Relativity. You’ll see this covered in Episode 22.
Readers familiar with namespaces and overloaded variables, and their relationship with functions, will find the mistake that happen when mistreating a function as an equation. This is addressed in Episode 17 of the Podcast Series – A Look at Einstein’s 1905 Derivation (Video). Simply stated, Einstein mistreats the Tau function as if it were an equation. Readers without this background will find the algebra-based approach given in the Storrs Conference Presentation (Video), easier to follow. Interestingly, Einstein and Lorentz drop a Beta term in each of their respective derivations. This point is also discussed briefly in Episode 17 of the Podcast series.
I hope you enjoy the material at RelativityChallenge.com.
“I never could figure out how rods got shorter simply by travelling at higher velocities or how time (which doesn’t appear to be a “thing”) could actually dilate. Your Episode #20 was excellent, showing the critical difference between length and rates. So that’s it! Those things don’t really happen.”
Glenn Borchardt, PhD
Odds are that you’ve arrived here because you either 1) are convinced that something is wrong with Einstein’s theory of Relativity and want to explore what that might be or 2) you believe that Special Relativity is right and want to know what people who disagree with his theory are saying.
Regardless of the reason that brought you here, I hope that as you explore the materials on the site you’ll learn something new. We cover a lot of material ranging from the specifics around Einstein’s mistake, to the introduction of an alternative model, to a review of some of the more well known scientific experiments related to Special Relativity.
This paper uses real values to illustrate the problem with Einstein’s 1905 derivation of the Xi (or X-axis) transformation equation. It also discusses the root cause of the problem and why it has been an illusive problem to uncover.
This paper reevaluates the Michelson-Morley experiment from the perspective of frequency using the superposition of waves principle. This reanalysis reveals their detection of an Earth orbital velocity of 30 km/s.
This finding supports the CICS model and questions special relativity on experimental grounds.
This paper compares the predicted results of SRT and the CICS model against the actual results of the Ives Stillwell experiment. CICS is shown to predict the results of the experiment as well as, or better than, SRT.
This paper reveals the root cause of the mistake in Einstein’s 1905 paper. It derives the time and length transformations, algebraically, revealing the problem of Einstein’s mistreatment of the time “function” as an “equation.”
This paper reveals Einstein’s mathematical mistakes in his 1905 paper, his 1912 paper, and his Relativity book. While the material contained in this paper is accurate, I have found more effective ways of communicating my findings. Please see Episode 17 in the Podcast section, for example.
This is my original paper on Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems. It reveals the mistakes in Einstein’s papers as well as offers the corrections to the equations and postulates. It also discusses implications such as the reintroduction of the electro-magnetic ether and the prediction of a Quantum Wave Medium.