# I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .

• 11 Replies
• 1587 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Mahesh Khati

• First timers
• 6
##### I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« on: 16/03/2016 12:47:49 »
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

#### marzosia2

• Full Member
• 93
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #1 on: 16/03/2016 12:56:40 »
sir i measured RED shift it is absolute Doppler

please look on my topic  (new theories)

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4814
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #2 on: 16/03/2016 17:10:06 »
Congratulations on your mathematical proof. Please explain the experimental results that say otherwise.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4060
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #3 on: 16/03/2016 18:25:34 »
I have proved mathematically that my cat is both dead and alive but he begs to differ. Especially at mealtimes.

#### Mahesh Khati

• First timers
• 6
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #4 on: 17/03/2016 08:42:45 »
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.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 2029
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #5 on: 17/03/2016 09:29:56 »
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.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• 3211
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #6 on: 17/03/2016 11:48:50 »
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.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4060
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #7 on: 17/03/2016 13:16:06 »
Yeah what did maths ever do for us?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• 3211
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #8 on: 17/03/2016 13:51:17 »
Yeah what did maths ever do for us?

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

#### Mahesh Khati

• First timers
• 6
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #9 on: 06/06/2016 09:09:02 »
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 formulae’s
In any frame, for force in X-direction by S.R.
$$F_x = \frac { d }{d_t} ( \gamma m_0 u_x) where \gamma= \frac {1}{(1-\frac{u^2}{c^2})}$$

So, after differentiation
$$F_x= \gamma m_o \frac{du_x}{dt} + \gamma ^3. mo. \frac{u_x}{c^2}. (u . \frac{du}{dt})$$
$$Fx= \gamma mo. a_x + \gamma ^3. mo. \frac{u_x}{c^2}. (u . a) -----(A)$$
We know, $$u^2=u_x^2+u_y^2+u_z^2$$

So, after differentiation
$$2 u. (du/dt) = 2.u_x (du_x/dt) +2.u_y (du_y/dt) + 2.u_z (du_z/dt)$$
$$2 u. a = 2.u_x a_x +2.u_y a_y + 2.u_z a_z$$
$$u. a = u_x a_x + u_y a_y + u_z a_z --------(B)$$
from (A) & (B)

So,
$$F_x=\gamma m_o a_x+\gamma ^3 m_o. \frac{u_x}{c^2} (u_x a_x+u_y a_y+u_z a_z) ------(1)$$

On frictionless platform, object is moving with constant velocity $$u_x$$ in X-direction & only magnetic force is acting in Y-direction & there is acceleration in Y-direction only with velocity $$u_y$$
$$(&F_z=0)$$
If we apply eq(1) to this case then result will be
$$F_x=\gamma^3 m_0 \frac { u_x }{c^2} u_y a_y$$
$$F_x=F_a_y$$ as this force is form due to $$a_y$$ [/itex] only
Mean’s even there is no magnetic force acting on object from outside in x-direction & no $$a_x$$ then also above force will act on object in +ve direction of x-axis due to $$a_y$$
Important point (1):-
Mean’s applied magnetic force on object in X-direction is 0 & acting force in X-direction is
$$F_x=\gamma^3 m_0 \frac { u_x }{c^2} u_y a_y +0$$ or $$F_a_y+0=F_a_y$$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 2:-Now, Force acting in X-direction is
$$F_x=\gamma^3 m_0 \frac { u_x }{c^2} u_y a_y or F_a_y$$

Now, after this happen, very small magnetic force of same intensity
-fx =-  $$\gamma^3 m_0 \frac { u_x }{c^2} u_y a_y$$ or $$-F_a_y$$ start acting on object in direction opposite to above force (but velocity is still positive $$u_x$$) & cancel that above force.
Mean’s equation (1) becomes
$$0 =\gamma m_0 a_x+\gamma^3 m_0 \frac { u_x }{c^2} (u_x a_x+u_y a_y)$$
Or  $$0 =\gamma m_0 a_x(1+\gamma^2 \frac { u_x^2 }{c^2}) +F_a_y$$
(Here as  $$F_a_y=\gamma^3 m_0 \frac { u_x }{c^2} u_y a_y$$)

Mean’s $$F_a_y$$  =$$\gamma m_0 ( -a_x)(1+\gamma^2 \frac { u_x^2 }{c^2})$$
Mean’s there must be acceleration in –ve X-direction to fulfil above equation of S.R.
Now, see above equation carefully, it is of nature
$$0= -fx + F_a_y$$
Important point (2):- Mean’s applied magnetic force on object in X-direction is -fx & acting force in X-direction is $$-fx + F_a_y=0$$ 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 $$F_a_y$$ 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+$$F_a_y$$)
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+$$F_a_x$$)
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.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• 2788
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #10 on: 06/06/2016 09:30:03 »
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 »

#### Mahesh Khati

• First timers
• 6
##### Re: I proved mathematically that the special theory of relativity wrong .
« Reply #11 on: 06/06/2016 09:42:06 »
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
$$F_x=\gamma^3 m_0 \frac { u_x }{c^2} u_y a_y$$
This is not applied force from out side.
In my paper you find some other mathematics also.