The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .  (Read 1542 times)

Offline Mahesh Khati

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
On my site , In my paper on relativity, I mathematically proved that Einstein's special theory of relativity is wrong . I mathematically proved that A)   FORCES IN RELATIVITY PROVES THAT THE S.R. THEORY IS WRONG B)CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY IN TWO DIFFERENT FRAMES PROVES EINSTEIN IS WRONG C) INCONSISTANCY OF MASS IN RELATIVITY D)   RELATIVE VELOCITY WILL BE MORE THAN VELOCITY OF LIGHT. E)   ABSOLUTE INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME IS A RELATIVISTIC CONCEPT F)   IN TWO REFERENCE FRAMES, WHICH ARE MOVING WITH CONSTANT RELATIVE VELOCITIES, ONE FRAME IS SPECIAL
               Paper is attached below


 

Offline marzosia2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
sir i measured RED shift it is absolute Doppler

please look on my topic  (new theories)
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Congratulations on your mathematical proof. Please explain the experimental results that say otherwise.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I have proved mathematically that my cat is both dead and alive but he begs to differ. Especially at mealtimes.
 

Offline Mahesh Khati

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
I personally think about that & written about it on my web site. I try to explain it in short.
I am not against experimental results but that not happen due to S.R.
but due to property of photon & property of electromagnetic balance flux & gravity present around every substance in world. For example, I have instrument to measure photon (light) velocity, if I consider only -ve electron in that instrument then very high -ve flux will present around it but that was nullify by overlapping +ve flux of protons of same intensity. Means, one balance electromagnetic flux is present around every substance. Photon & elementary particle express there velocity with relative to that flux (particle may be inside to that substance or out side near to it). So, sensitive photon express his velocity C with related to electro flux of measuring instrument because it is substance to its proximate. So, we get equal velocity C in all direction on earth. When it is measure in train with instrument, it will express our velocity with train frame because it is substance to its proximate.
                          This flux not only create reference frame but change the property of space. When it has more intensity, time slow down. This is reason to get slower time near to earth & velocity of light less than C in substance.
In this way all thing can be explain. Can you consider photon on Jupiter surface have same velocity C with relative to man on earth surface. No, not possible. This flux & gravity create concept of inertia because if we accelerate with relative to it then it opposes that change in velocity. All my thoughts are available on my web site with other paper.     
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
I have instrument to measure photon (light) velocity, if I consider only -ve electron in that instrument then very high -ve flux will present around it but that was nullify by overlapping +ve flux of protons of same intensity.
Please describe this measuring instrument and its working or quote manufacturer's name and model number.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
On my site , In my paper on relativity, I mathematically proved that Einstein's special theory of relativity is wrong . I mathematically proved that A)   FORCES IN RELATIVITY PROVES THAT THE S.R. THEORY IS WRONG B)CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY IN TWO DIFFERENT FRAMES PROVES EINSTEIN IS WRONG C) INCONSISTANCY OF MASS IN RELATIVITY D)   RELATIVE VELOCITY WILL BE MORE THAN VELOCITY OF LIGHT. E)   ABSOLUTE INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME IS A RELATIVISTIC CONCEPT F)   IN TWO REFERENCE FRAMES, WHICH ARE MOVING WITH CONSTANT RELATIVE VELOCITIES, ONE FRAME IS SPECIAL
               Paper is attached below

Hello, I have tried to read your page several times and have no idea what you are talking about, I recognise you and your idea from another site where they moved your thread to strange claims.

One particular reply states this  -


''Here's one as an example: On page 20 you argue "But R does not have any limit because it is distance. So if R > C then V > C."''

One thing I do understand is when somebody is treading in the waters my theory treads in. This is a wrong assumption by you , let me explain.


r=L 

d=d

We can only define a radius between two source points, a radius is technically the same as a length.   Distance is an undefined length . e.g One observer stares into the  ''blackness'' of space.


my definitions

Space - space is the volume of ''seemingly empty'' distance that surrounds an observer

Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of N-dimensional space extending away from the observer

Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two light reflective or light emitting  point sources.

2. A measurement of an objects physical dimensions of its form.


Read some of my ideas on here, The theory of realistic I have explains just about everything.  Maths is not that good mate don't get wrapped in maths.






 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Yeah what did maths ever do for us?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Yeah what did maths ever do for us?

Please don't misunderstand me, real maths like F=ma is quite cool.
 

Offline Mahesh Khati

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Something beautiful is happening now a days in physics, It is experimentally proved that universe is expanding at faster rate than that GR predicted & LHC may find massive particle beyond standard model of physics means we can not explain even 5% of known matter correctly. If SR is proved mathematically wrong then we have to write down whole physics again.

VERY IMPORTANT MATHEMATICS IN MY PAPER:-
Force without acceleration in S.R.
& acceleration without force in S.R.
& applied force is less than acting force in S.R.


STEP 1:-This problem can easily be understood by following paradox.
{Before starting this paradox, I want to put some relativity formulaeís
In any frame, for force in X-direction by S.R.
9baaa8d9051488c156d9a05e9680ac0d.gif

So, after differentiation
49c9fc810954327ffd8222eb93a8b9aa.gif
6613c71e1ffd7a21d0295d0c599b4370.gif
We know, c8705128982b5427b606cef6ed5c9939.gif

So, after differentiation
7d6a82bef348ba011812a947154476ef.gif
7aa0373f624ed34722879d27803cb90c.gif
79150e7a905b1feb595cd7b8653e2fa6.gif
from (A) & (B)

So,
3f41647e46912c90bbf03acd5d31d1a1.gif

Now, Paradox:-
On frictionless platform, object is moving with constant velocity 9a30512405c4138a689b66957d9e1601.gif in X-direction & only magnetic force is acting in Y-direction & there is acceleration in Y-direction only with velocity 530101e95f755cddbb75c0924f4c6969.gif
 028b375079559cf0a6554f22a952ea94.gif
If we apply eq(1) to this case then result will be
5469e0a50e0d564533ab5a9043a6fbc6.gif
49496f22ea2509f42a29b7c8672ff711.gif as this force is form due to 049526a86f30148986edffdb4168e359.gif [/itex] only
Meanís even there is no magnetic force acting on object from outside in x-direction & no d4bb73c2c32a9204ad95788d6b765c6c.gif then also above force will act on object in +ve direction of x-axis due to 049526a86f30148986edffdb4168e359.gif
Important point (1):-
Meanís applied magnetic force on object in X-direction is 0 & acting force in X-direction is
f5d60be187360206272c1fa473c9125a.gif or 98b4210e085224c9081fd45d13014242.gif
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 2:-Now, Force acting in X-direction is
72021168f31ab91511dbcbed358768c6.gif

Now, after this happen, very small magnetic force of same intensity
 -fx =-  f82f1430c624f04bc98c31876c73a105.gif or 8e3cceb8ada0f2bad7e8ddc134049f17.gif start acting on object in direction opposite to above force (but velocity is still positive 9a30512405c4138a689b66957d9e1601.gif) & cancel that above force.
Meanís equation (1) becomes
d5a5b66f1e004c69db35e7e1efcf631f.gif
Or  bc3ed6f0b404ec10b75a728081b9d355.gif
(Here as  063a77ab09b3ff907ba8f8e7d5c1d99f.gif)

Meanís ee3e00e0607ea069b169a68992b4bebf.gif  =51505652af77ed4fe4bc1efbdf161484.gif
Meanís there must be acceleration in Ėve X-direction to fulfil above equation of S.R.
Now, see above equation carefully, it is of nature
    4d1c2a34bb516bf5cf017fa8d7221e6a.gif
Important point (2):- Meanís applied magnetic force on object in X-direction is -fx & acting force in X-direction is 9fe854c1d0d3904929464decba591732.gif or 0.
Here, resultant force in X-direction is zero but there is acceleration.
STEP3:- same things happen for +ve force in X-direction (for less than 5e76da0780f66f71f9f7d1d822301d4f.gif or more)
Now, I am generalising above result.
This clearly shows that when we apply any magnetic force (Fmx) in X-direction on the object, actual force acting on object is more & that quantity is (Fmx+5e76da0780f66f71f9f7d1d822301d4f.gif)
Similarly,
If we apply any magnetic force (Fmy) in Y-direction on the object then actual force acting on object is more & that quantity is (Fmy+7b7dd1a685016c34c51166d5b706c632.gif)
This is completely complicated results, which says that applied force & acting forces on objects are different in S.R.
STEP4:- Force does work, consume energy, gain energy & we must know that energy cannot be created. It can be transferred only:-
From above setup it must be clear that energy get transfer from magnet to object but if applied force is less than acting force then energy gain by object will be more than energy loose by the magnet. Means due to more work done by more force for same displacement, more energy get generated.
HERE, more energy(& force) is the problem.
Where does this additional energy (& force) comes from?

This clearly shows that something is seriously wrong in Special theory of relativity.
I also put some additional mathematics to proves SR wrong.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Mahesh Khati
On my site , In my paper on relativity, I mathematically proved that Einstein's special theory of relativity is wrong .
It's impossible to prove that special relativity is wrong because that theory is literally its two postulates and those postulates can be proved to be false only by experiment.

In the past I've listened to and even read a few of these peoples claims that SR is wrong and in all cases their results are always based on a very poor grasp of SR and the scientific method. I'd hazard to guess that nobody else will waste their time with claims like this either.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2016 09:37:27 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline Mahesh Khati

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Above Mathematics is done by using SR mathematics. Which proves that applied force & acting force are different in SR.
For example, If you are moving towards any falling ball & apply SR equation (1) then you will find that horizontal force acting on that ball by SR is
5469e0a50e0d564533ab5a9043a6fbc6.gif
This is not applied force from out side.
In my paper you find some other mathematics also.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums