[NPA Chat] The SR is mathematically wrong, 100%

[John Huang]

Roger,

 

You are right. The SR believers would assume that is the way things are meant to be. The relativistic velocity addition violates rules of vector calculus, and actually, the SR itself violates algebra.

 

The mathematical problem in the SR is very obvious but people ignore it because teachers do not teach it and writers of textbooks do not write it. The simplest method in algebra is to substitute symbols in an equation so long as we follow logical rules. Now, let above trains A and B to move toward same direction with velocity of v and 2v. In the new situation, the third situation, Mr. P could apply SR for the train B to calculate the speed of time in the train B (tB) based on the speed of time in the platform system (tP), that will be (tP) = ((1-(2v/c)^2)^(-1/2)) (tB) ---(1). Another way to calculate the (tB) is to calculate the speed of time in the train A (tA) based on the (tP), then we calculate the (tB) based on the (tA) and then substitute the (tA) by the (tP), that will be (tP) = ((c^2)/((c^2)-(v^2)))(tB) ---(2). In algebra, it is logically sound to do so, but, when we follow the mathematical substitution we will find out the results are not the same, the (2) is not the same as the (1). That means, the SR is mathematically wrong!

 

Regards,

John

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:16 PM, ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Laski

 I agree that relativistic velocity addition is nonsense. But whatever is necessary so as to conform to the two main assumptions of SR is just accepted. So you say relativistic velocity addition violates rules of vector calculus; so for SR believers then they would assume that is the way things are meant to be .

Roger

---

From: Laski <la...@autocom.pl>
To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Saturday, 28 January 2012, 18:11
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Fw: RE: [Relativity] A Summary Commentary

Greg, Harry, Roger and Others,

 

    So far, the classical rules of vector calculus are still valid. However  Einstein formula for velocities addition violates them. Do we need anything more stronger in order to refute SRT ? See my paper:" Velocities in Special Relativity are not Vectors" presented (in absentia) at the 18 NPA Conference.    

 

Best regards

 

Janusz  D. Laski

----- Original Message -----

From: HARRY RICKER

To: membe...@worldnpa.org

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:54 PM

Subject: [NPA Chat] Fw: RE: [Relativity] A Summary Commentary

--- On Thu, 1/26/12, HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com> wrote: From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [Relativity] A Summary Commentary To: relat...@worldsci.org Date: Thursday, January 26, 2012, 7:44 AM Introduction It has been several years since Greg Volk asked me to lead this group. There have been some big changes for me. My mother died last year and my life has changed so that my time to do this is now dwindling. Several months ago I asked Greg to find someone to replace me. I have been carrying on as best as I can. For the last several weeks I have had time during the holidays and because its January and there is not much to do. But as we move ahead in the calendar that is changing. So I want you all to know that it is time for me to perhaps step aside and let someone else do this job. If you are available contact Greg Volk. Where We Have Been I have written two status reports for the NPA which were presented at NPA 17 and 18. These tell the story. I think that the main thing we have done under my leadership is the Twins Paradox Project. If you Google Twins Paradox we come up on the first page. That is very good. I ask all of you to try it out. Please go to our web page, which is Nick's work, and read it. Please sign the letter. Nick has a status report and it is very good. It is new and you should read it. Give comments to Nick. We have been working with the German G. O. Muller project on the Twins Paradox project and I think it is important to pool our resources. We need to work with other groups. Where We are Headed I think that members of this group need to work to get the new NPA site going. unfortunately I don't have the time to do this group and work on that site. My view is that we need to do more projects like the Twin Paradox project as that produces a result that informs people. Anyone interested in developing this kind of project? Summary Remarks Recently I have been saying that science is a form of idealistic metaphysical philosophy. This kind of approach to knowledge has become institutionalized and that is a big problem. It is very clear to me that the special theory of relativity is based upon false and untenable principles. It is more than 50 years since Herbert Dingle declared that relativity is false, and 70 years since Herbert Ives voiced his opposition to relativity. Things have improved but the theory is still mainstream dogma.  That is slowly changing.  I am 100% convinced that relativity is wrong and I have documented this with a lot of papers on the subject.( Go to GSJ: wbabin.net) I finally discovered last summer that pretty much everything has already been said and written on this. It is just a matter of getting the word out. This is to say that if one really wants to know why relativity is false it is possible to find out what the errors are, but the work in doing that is great. That is one thing that NPA can do which is to bring all of the facts together so that instead of taking 10 years to figure out what is wrong, the process can maybe be reduced to a year. That is it may take this long to master the subject now because the information is more readily available than when I looked into the subject. I spent a lot of time to discover that most of the proofs were buried in obscurity. We need to change that. Furthermore the arguments need to be perfected so that it is very clear, and not confusing, exactly why Einstein's theory is not supported by the experience of the real world. That is his theory is a metaphysical dream and it is not reflected in reality.    Regarding Replacement Theories I am not much of a proponent of a replacement theory to relativity as I consider that premature. So perhaps it is best to find someone else to lead that effort. Discussing alternative theories takes a lot of time and I don't have the ability to do that. So perhaps it is best to have an aether group or a relativity alternative theory group for the discussion of theories to replace relativity.  Do any of you want to lead this effort? Contact Greg. My Future I probably will not be leaving right away. I just want you all to know that I will not be able to give the time that I have been putting into this recently. As the calendar unfolds I have a lot of other things demanding my time.   Harry

---

_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Dear John That sounds good to me. But from an SR believer's point-of-view there are problems. When I have argued with SR believers and suffered name calling from them. One of the things I pointed out was the use of relativistic velocity addition was nonsense (i.e mathematically invalid) when applied to three frames. Their response was that I wasn't using the maths in the correct way as required by SR. They just invented complicated rules as to how the maths should be used. So I think your argument would suffer from that with SR believers. SR believers commit the sin of moving the goalposts. If you present an argument showing what they believe is wrong, then they add an extra assumption. In what I am riting about at the moment -- a photon emitted from a rest frame F1 and based on lightspeed constancy, then talking about things from rest frame of the photon leadsto nonsense. So the SR believer claims there is no rest frame for the photon. --- That is an extra assumption. Going by Newtonian physics - there is nothing to prevent there being a rest frame of the photon. But the SR believer recognises that given assumption of lightspeed constancy that would lead to nonsense; so changes things from Newtonian physics - and assumes there is no rest frame of the photon. So you see the method -- whenever a contradiction is poined out  then the SR believer just changes things from existing setup of Newtonian physics and assumes something else. Their SIN is therefore to abandon Logic. Regards Roger --- On Mon, 30/1/12, John Huang <jh1...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Dear John That sounds good to me. But from an SR believer's point-of-view there are problems. When I have argued with SR believers and suffered name calling from them. One of the things I pointed out was the use of relativistic velocity addition was nonsense (i.e mathematically invalid) when applied to three frames. Their response was that I wasn't using the maths in the correct way as required by SR. They just invented complicated rules as to how the maths should be used. So I think your argument would suffer from that with SR believers. SR believers commit the sin of moving the goalposts. If you present an argument showing what they believe is wrong, then they add an extra assumption. In what I am riting about at the moment -- a photon emitted from a rest frame F1 and based on lightspeed constancy, then talking about things from rest frame of the photon leadsto nonsense. So the SR believer claims there is no rest frame for the photon. --- That is an extra assumption. Going by Newtonian physics - there is nothing to prevent there being a rest frame of the photon. But the SR believer recognises that given assumption of lightspeed constancy that would lead to nonsense; so changes things from Newtonian physics - and assumes there is no rest frame of the photon. So you see the method -- whenever a contradiction is poined out  then the SR believer just changes things from existing setup of Newtonian physics and assumes something else. Their SIN is therefore to abandon Logic. Regards Roger --- On Mon, 30/1/12, John Huang <jh1...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: John Huang <jh1...@gmail.com> Subject: The SR is mathematically wrong, 100% To: "ROGER ANDERTON" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org> Cc: "Hartwig Thim" <super...@gmx.at>, Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu, pala...@gmail.com, vira...@yahoo.co.uk Date: Monday, 30 January, 2012, 5:33