Site map of:
E = γmc2
I2 = (ct)2 – x2 = (ct´)2 – x´2 =…
NM: Vwrt x=0 = (x´/t) = (x´/I)c
SRT: vwrt x=0=(x´/t´)=(x´/H)c
NM: Vwrt* = (H/t) = (c´t)/t = c´
SRT: vwrt * = (H/t´) = (ct´/t´) = c
Albert Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity (SRT) has been in use for over a century. Some have even considered it “settled science”, with Newtonian Mechanics (NM) a tolerable approximation at low speeds. But it still has paradoxes such as the twin paradox and the barn/pole paradox which should not exist. Yet it seems to work. How can this be?
SRT is ‘wrong’ in the same sense that substituting “Ifmmp” for “Hello” is ‘wrong’. “Ifmmp” is an encryption of “Hello” by replacing each letter in “Hello” with the next letter of the alphabet. A whole book like “War and Pease” could be encrypted this way but no information is lost. When you know the code method, you can get back the original.
That SRT is really an encryption of NM is completely spelled out in a single page. Click on “Special Relativity (SRT) is an encryption of Newtonian Mechanics (NM)”. For example, as shown in the article, if an object moves 200 meters while light moves 300 meters (1.0 microsecond), then NM says the object’s speed is V= 200 m/µs (V=0.66…c) while SRT says its speed is v=166.41 m/µs (v=0.55470c) . But, because of this encryption, no matter how great the actual NM speed is, the SRT speed will always be less than c , 300 m/µs (v<1.0c) .
As also noted in the article, SRT velocity v is related to NM velocity V by
v = V/γ
where
γ = 1/(1 – (v/c)2)1/2
Because of this, in every instance, there is a 1:1 correspondence between the SRT depiction of any events and the NM depiction of the same events. The conversion back and forth between the NM and SRT depiction of any and all events is completely set out and proven in the article “SRT to NM and vice versa”.
Why and at what point do NM and SRT diverge? These questions are answered by clicking on another one page article “Exactly Where Special Relativity (SRT) is Wrong and Why’. It points out the single incorrect variable in the SRT Relativistic Interval equation
I2 = (ct)2 – x2 = (ct´)2 – x´2 = (ct´´)2 – x´´2…
and why the error was made. This is important because all the equations and concepts of SRT derive from this one (incorrect) SRT Relativistic Interval equation. Even the transformation equations of SRT (first line below) are really the Relativistic Interval equation (second line) in disguise.
x´ = γ(vt + x) t´ = γ(t + (v/c2)x) ct´= γ(ct + (v/c)x)
I2 = (ct´)2 – x´2 = γ2(ct + (v/c)x)2 – γ2(vt + x)2 = (ct)2 – x2
So, as shown in the foregoing articles, c appears to be a ‘limiting speed’ because the SRT ‘speed’ v is not the correct value for speed. Time ‘dilation’ (and its corollary, length contraction) do not exist. They are simply artifacts caused by SRT’s v being treated as a real velocity rather than as a function,
v=(V/γ)=(V/((V/c)2 +1)1/2 , of the true speed, V , of NM.
[Proof of this value of the gamma function (γ):]
γ2 = 1/(1 – (v/c)2) = 1/(1 – (V/γc)2) ; γ2 – (V/c)2 = 1 ; γ = ((V/c)2 + 1)1/2
The article “The Interval Equation Shows the Error of Special Relativity Theory (SRT)” expands a bit on the above. The article “Simple Algebra and Special Relativity” shows the derivation of the Interval equation of both NM (yes, it actually has one but there is no reason to use it) and SRT from very basic principles.
The other articles in the ‘New Complete’ section of this Special Relativity web site cover areas of SRT that can now be better understood. For example, even Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 is incorrect—but incorrect according to SRT! He really believed that if E increased, then mass m increased. Since everything has multiple velocities, depending on what you are comparing it to, everything would have multiple masses if E=mc2 were correct.
According to SRT, it should read E=γmc2 . Mass does not change with velocity, γ does, as shown by deriving the correct formula from the SRT Interval equation in “SRT reveals E=mc2 is flawed”. Mass and energy can presumably interconvert but, as noted above, mass does not change with velocity per se. Thus, rest mass ‘energy’, mc2 , simply becomes an unnecessary ‘constant’ that is bandied about. This is fully covered in the short article “On the Strange Concept of Rest Mass Energy”.
“How to derive Newtonian Mechanics Directly from Only the Equations of Special Relativity” does exactly what it says. It derives the NM transformation equation x´=Vt+x using nothing but Einstein’s SRT equations, again proving that NM and SRT are 1:1 transformations of each other.
SRT uses its distorted (false) velocity v in the integral that gives rise to the SRT kinetic energy formula (γ–1)mc2 . (Had they used P/m , momentum per unit mass, instead they might have gotten it right.) However, this results in energy characteristically not being conserved in elastic collisions vs. in the NM depiction where it is. The article “Kinetic Energy is Characteristically Not Conserved in Special Relativity (SRT) Collisions” covers this subject.
When done correctly, the SRT kinetic energy formula becomes ½m(γv)2 which is the same as the NM version as revealed in the article “Relativistic vs. Newtonian Kinetic Energy”.
The error Einstein introduced to create SRT is the result of applying his Second Postulate to what might be called the General Interval equation
H2 = I2 + x2 ; I2 =H2 – x2 = H´2 – x´2 = H´´2 – x´´2 =…
where I and x are the distances respectively that light and an object have moved perpendicularly from their common origin and H is the distance at the moment between the object and the current perpendicular position of the light front. Applying this Second Postulate resulted in the SRT Interval equation
I2 = (ct)2 – x2 = (ct´)2 – x´2 = (ct´´)2 – x´´2 =…
instead of the correct NM Interval equation
I2 =(ct)2 – x2 = (c´t)2 – x´2 = (c´´t)2 – x´´2 =…
(as discussed in “The Interval Equation Shows the Error of Special Relativity Theory (SRT)” mentioned above) although that is not how Einstein arrived at his conclusions.
Paraphrasing from Einstein’s 1905 paper, “light always travels at speed c in free space” [a vacuum]. This is a meaningless statement because you must ask, speed c (or any speed) relative to what? “Everything” is not a suitable answer, as shown next.
A second way the Second Postulate is often expressed is that “light travels at speed c in all reference frames.” This is as obviously erroneous as saying that Leo (light) is moving away from George, Thomas, Paul, and Roger at the same speed as he is from James when the latter five are all moving in different directions and speeds with respect to each other.
What about the experimental ‘proofs’ of SRT? Dr. Howard Hayden in 1992 revealed that, while all the ‘proofs’ were compatible with SRT, they were not exclusive to SRT and could just as easily be interpreted differently. To quote: “It is the case, however, that all experiments claiming support for Einstein theory — without a single exception known to the writer — come from E n G [referring to a Venn diagram]; that is, they lend support to Galilean relativity and Einstein theory with equanimity.” The reference is
Hayden, H., “Distinctions Between Galilean and Einsteinian Physics,” Galilean Electrodynamics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 23-27, March/April 1992.
In summary, SRT uses an untenable Second Postulate to incorrectly modify the value of one variable, velocity, v , and create another, ’dilated’ time, t´ , to compensate for it, resulting in creating what amounts to an encryption of Newtonian Mechanics. Because it’s an encryption, a SRT version of events may be converted back into the correct NM rendition and vice versa as mentioned above.
All SRT depictions should be converted to their sensible NM form and SRT should be removed completely from General Relativity and everything else.
Special Relativity (SRT) is Really Encrypted (coded) Newtonian Mechanics (NM)
Dr. Sherwood Kaip
<skaip799@gmail.com>; cell: 1 (915) 309-6340
This material may be reproduced if author attribution is given.
To return from PRINT page, click "back" arrow on your browser