The Special Theory Of Relativity Has Been Disproved Theoretically

[☆ pantheory ☆]

"The Special Theory of Relativity has been disproved."

 

To say that the above statement, news report of the same name, and related scientific paper are controversial would be a very gross understatement. This news report/ article (link below) is in the March 2016 Eureka Science News and is based on a new scientific paper accepted for publication in the journal Physics Essays, which I hope will be available online next month.

 

It could be said that still 99% of theorists and related scientists still endorse Special Relativity, but contrary views have been growing in recent decades. Below are the beginning quotes from the article:

 

At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated.

 

For example, the behaviors of clocks in Hafele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton's velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula. In fact, Hafele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.

 

The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air..........

 

 

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

 

19th century aether theories, as well as those that came before, in general were judged by early 20th century physicists, as  being "probably invalid" following the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment in the late 19th century. In the early 20th century Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was proposed and generally accepted within a decade or so of its proposal. Although there were many experiments that followed concerning the existence of an aether and the validity of Special Relativity, none were able to sway mainstream physicists opinions concerning this now well-accepted theory; this new paper and related article(s) I believe will be no exception. It might be noted that Einstein never received a Nobel prize for either of his theories of Relativity; his Nobel Prize was "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" -- and his observations and paper concerning Brownian motions also contributed to his nomination.

 

Although much purported evidence is presented in the subject news report to support its proposal, none of this supposed evidence probably would be considered highly-persuasive by most theorists regarding changes to the mainstream views of aether or Special Relativity. The closest things to an aether field that is accepted in modern physics would be the Zero Point Field (ZPF), dark matter, and/or the Higgs field. The known characteristics of the ZPF, virtual particles is still a long ways away theoretically from the luminiferous aether of the 19th century, proposed by Lorentz, Maxwell, Young, Fresnel, and many others. Dark matter remains unknown and may not exist at all, and the mechanics of a Higgs field is still no more than speculation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

 

Whether Special Relativity is valid of not,  or a physical luminiferous aether field (a background of particulates of some kind which would be the "carrier of light waves (EM radiation))," exists or not, I believe, will be an  ongoing question and subject of future experiments for many decades still to come, at which time I believe aether theory of one sort or another, will finally be resurrected and generally accepted.

 

The recent discovery of gravity waves was an additional endorsement of the equations of Einstein and general relativity. but most do not realize that generally all aether theories past and present also predict(ed) the existence of gravity waves related to high-velocities of large, interacting gravitational bodies.

 

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/06/awt-and-gravity.html

 

Although General Relativity equations have been shown to be accurate at solar system distances, the theory must rely upon the existence of dark matter at galaxy and universe scales; without dark matter it can make no accurate predictions at the scale of the observable universe. Calculations are generally off, as is Newtonian gravity, by at least a factor of two.  General Relativity is also theoretically based upon the warping of space, where observations to date indicate a totally "flat" observable universe with no indications of warping.

 

The third big player in modern physics is Quantum Theory and its math, quantum mechanics. There is presently no consensus version of Quantum Theory accepted (there are more than a dozen contenders). The consensus version of the math in the quantum world is called quantum mechanics. The fourth foundation theory in modern physics is particle physics theory which predicts unseen pulling forces, and particles (free quarks and "gluons") which cannot be observed independently according to theory. That which can never be observed according to theory must always be suspect.

 

I believe all four of these foundation theories in modern physics will be replaced within maybe a half century or less as discussed in other threads of this sub-forum. What do you think? 

[bornagainathiest]

What do I think?

 

Well, I think it's interesting that the "original source" of this NAC article... 

 

ORIGINAL SOURCE

http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2015.asp 

 

...is a dead link.

 

Server Error

404 - File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

 

 

And that the related "related journal article" link...

 

RELATED JOURNAL ARTICLE

http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-29.1.142 

 

...is also dead.

 

DOI Not Found

 

10.4006/0836-1398-29.1.142

 

This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System. Possible reasons are:

• The DOI is incorrect in your source. Search for the item by name, title, or other metadata using a search engine.
• The DOI was copied incorrectly. Check to see that the string includes all the characters before and after the slash and no sentence punctuation marks.
• The DOI has not been activated yet. Please try again later, and report the problem if the error continues.

 

You may report this error to the responsible DOI Registration Agency using the form below. Include your email address to receive confirmation and feedback.

 

These two broken links, when taken with this disclaimer...

 

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

 

...cause me to doubt the veracity of this article.

 

Because I have no way of checking the source of the NAC's claims about Special Relativity being theoretically disproven.

 

Thus, the entire content of this article is an unsupported claim.

[☆ pantheory ☆]

What do I think?

 

Well, I think it's interesting that the "original source" of this NAC article... 

 

ORIGINAL SOURCE

http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2015.asp 

 

...is a dead link.

 

Server Error

404 - File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

 

 

And that the related "related journal article" link...

 

RELATED JOURNAL ARTICLE

http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-29.1.142 

 

...is also dead.

 

DOI Not Found

 

10.4006/0836-1398-29.1.142

 

This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System. Possible reasons are:

• The DOI is incorrect in your source. Search for the item by name, title, or other metadata using a search engine.
• The DOI was copied incorrectly. Check to see that the string includes all the characters before and after the slash and no sentence punctuation marks.
• The DOI has not been activated yet. Please try again later, and report the problem if the error continues.

 

You may report this error to the responsible DOI Registration Agency using the form below. Include your email address to receive confirmation and feedback.

 

These two broken links, when taken with this disclaimer...

 

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

 

...cause me to doubt the veracity of this article.

 

Because I have no way of checking the source of the NAC's claims about Special Relativity being theoretically disproven.

 

Thus, the entire content of this article is an unsupported claim.

 

The validity or this paper is not the contention of the NAC, they only have endorsed it. And Eureka Science News considers the article news worthy. The paper represents the claims of its authors only. The Journal of Physics Essays has accepted this paper for publication this month, March. I expect the paper itself will be available for further discussions, next month.  Until the paper is published and available online, only the claims and arguments of the article itself (a press release) with link provided, can be discussed or verified.

[bornagainathiest]

 

What do I think?

 

Well, I think it's interesting that the "original source" of this NAC article... 

 

ORIGINAL SOURCE

http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2015.asp 

 

...is a dead link.

 

Server Error

404 - File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

 

 

And that the related "related journal article" link...

 

RELATED JOURNAL ARTICLE

http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-29.1.142 

 

...is also dead.

 

DOI Not Found

 

10.4006/0836-1398-29.1.142

 

This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System. Possible reasons are:

• The DOI is incorrect in your source. Search for the item by name, title, or other metadata using a search engine.
• The DOI was copied incorrectly. Check to see that the string includes all the characters before and after the slash and no sentence punctuation marks.
• The DOI has not been activated yet. Please try again later, and report the problem if the error continues.

 

You may report this error to the responsible DOI Registration Agency using the form below. Include your email address to receive confirmation and feedback.

 

These two broken links, when taken with this disclaimer...

 

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

 

...cause me to doubt the veracity of this article.

 

Because I have no way of checking the source of the NAC's claims about Special Relativity being theoretically disproven.

 

Thus, the entire content of this article is an unsupported claim.

 

The validity or this paper is not the contention of the NAC, they only have endorsed it. And Eureka Science News considers the article news worthy. The paper represents the claims of its authors only. The Journal of Physics Essays has accepted this paper for publication this month, March. I expect the paper itself will be available for further discussions, next month.  Until the paper is published and available online, only the claims of the article can be discussed or verified.

 

 

Thank you for that clarification, Pantheory.

[bornagainathiest]

Just out of curiosity Pantheory, could you please cite the current body of evidence that's usually invoked in support of Special Relativity?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[☆ pantheory ☆]

Just out of curiosity Pantheory, could you please cite the current body of evidence that's usually invoked in support of Special Relativity?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

Special Relativity (SR) may be the most respected and endorsed theory of modern physics. Its foundation is primarily founded on the conclusion that there is no omnipresent particulate aether which would have relative motion to itself, no flows, streams, vortices, etc. within it. Since the proposed expansion of space rather than the expansion of the matter within space, the last possible contradiction between the Big Bang model and SR was believed to be eliminated.

 

As to its math, SR can be equated with the math that Heinrich Lorentz proposed before Einstein, called Lorentz Transforms (LT). This math was proposed by Lorentz to explain why the Michelson & Morley experiment of the 1880's was incapable of finding an aether because of the equipment's design.  Einstein came up with another version of these same LT equations for his Special Theory of Relativity, that did not require an aether.

 

No matter what evidence there may be to support Special Relativity, and there has been plenty cited over the past century, the foundation of the theory is the non-existence of an aether. If an aether is someday proven, Special Relativity will be replaced by Lorentz Transforms, or a similar aether theory.

 

What is the evidence that supports Special Relativity?

 

Although both SR and LT propose the same length contraction based upon relative motion, only SR can calculate time dilation with present technology, where LT estimates time dilation but would need knowledge of aether characteristics for a more exact calculation.  Even if an aether exists its characteristics are presently unknown.  Even though Lorentz' time dilation estimates are the same as Einstein's time dilation calculations, if aether characteristics are also needed, they have not been shown to be consequential concerning time here on Earth. LT is also based upon preferred reference frames and other assumptions that are not believed to be needed for SR as far as experiments have shown. In SR the speed of light, for instance, is constant in all time frames, but in LT the speed of light is constant only relative to the speed of the aether inside which its energy waves move. Both methods of calculation would give the same results if the effects of the aether here on Earth were inconsequential such as the dragging of aether along with it like an underlying atmosphere encompassing matter, but SR has a theoretical complement explaining gravitational effects on light and time dilation, the theory of General Relativity, which LT does not have.

 

Most Tests made to validate or invalidate Special Relativity also would likewise validate or invalidate Lorentz Transform Theory. Only an ultimately accepted test which could conclusively validate or invalidate the existence of an aether, would finally eliminate one theory or the other. Other possibilities are that one or more test could eliminate the possibilities of both theories, or could preferably favor LT, since SR is already overwhelmingly favored. Of course the existence of something unknown may be very difficult to show strong evidence for it (in this case aether), but it often could be more difficult trying to prove the non-existence of the same thing -- god comes to mind. A similar problem could exist trying to finally prove the non-existence of an aether, whether it exists or not.

 

There have been many tests of SR and LT over the last century. These include validation tests which involve both theories, comparisons between the two theories, and also many additional tests of aether theory. Here is a summary:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

[RogueScholar]

Special relativity is so powerful, it is an integral component in explaining some of the special properties exhibited by certain elements. When I first started grad school back in 2013, I had an interest in heavy metal toxicity as I did a project during under grad where I discussed how special relativity may inform the quantum mechanical model of Mercury atoms. Basically, the hypothesis was that the outer electrons in Mercury atoms are moving so fast, relativistic effects cause the atomic orbital these electrons occupy to contract. This leads to an explanation for how Mercury can be a liquid at room temperature.

 

Then, upon starting grad school, a paper was published. Using a powerful form of quantum theory (yes the same quantum theory that is apparently wrong) known as an ab initio technique (specifically, a powerful technique known as a quantum Monte Carlo technique), researchers demonstrated how special relativity is required to predict the special properties of Mercury. The paper can be referenced here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/anie.201302742/abstractSo, special relativity informs us in areas most could not imagine; from GPS satellites, to particle physics to the very properties of atoms. Needless to say, I'm quite sure this one article will be so exceptionally compelling that it will cause about a century of predictions to fall from their shaky, tentative foundation.

 

Nice, bombastic thread title for a paper that cannot even be referenced yet.

[Jeff]

Nope pantheory.

You just lost the little bit of consideration I ever gave to your comments. Now this is just "pics of the holy spirit" type talk.

[midniterider]

"The Special Theory of Relativity has been disproved."

 

To say that that above statement, related scientific paper, and related articles are controversial, would be a very gross understatement. This article in March 2016 Eureka Science News is based on a new scientific paper accepted for publication in the journal Physics Essays, which I hope will be available online next month.

 

It could be said that still 99% of theorists and related scientists still endorse Special Relativity, but contrary views have been growing in recent decades. Below are the beginning quotes from the article:

 

At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated.

 

For example, the behaviors of clocks in Hafele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton's velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula. In fact, Hafele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.

 

The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air..........

 

 

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

 

Aether theory in general was judged by early 20th century physicists, as  being "probably invalid" following the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment in the late 19th century. In the early 20th century Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was proposed and generally accepted within a decade or so of its proposal. Although there were many experiments that followed concerning the existence of an aether and the validity of Special Relativity, none were able to sway opinions concerning this well-accepted theory; this new paper and related article(s) I believe will be no exception. It might be noted that Einstein never received a Nobel prize for either of his theories of Relativity; his Nobel Prize was "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" -- and his observations and paper concerning Brownian motions also contributed to his nomination.

 

Although much purported evidence is presented in the subject paper and article to support its proposal, none of this supposed evidence would be considered definitive concerning the mainstream view concerning an aether or Special Relativity. The closest things to an aether field that is accepted in modern physics would be the Zero Point Field (ZPF), dark matter, and/or the Higgs field. The known characteristics of the ZPF, virtual particles is still a long ways away theoretically from the luminiferous aether of the 19th century, proposed by Lorentz, Maxwell, Young, Fresnel, and many others. Dark matter remains unknown and may not exist at all, and the mechanics of a Higgs field is still no more than speculation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

 

Whether Special Relativity is valid of not,  or a physical aether field (a background of particulates of some kind which would be the "carrier of light waves (EM radiation))," exists or not, I believe, will be an  ongoing question and subject of future experiments for many decades still to come, at which time I believe aether theory of one sort or another, will finally be resurrected and generally accepted.

 

The recent discovery of gravity waves was an additional endorsement of the equations of Einstein and general relativity. but most do not realize that generally all aether theories past and present also predict(ed) the existence of gravity waves related to high-velocities of large, interacting gravitational bodies.

 

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/06/awt-and-gravity.html

 

Although General Relativity equations have been shown to be accurate at solar system distances, the theory must rely upon the existence of dark matter at galaxy and universe scales; without dark matter it can make no accurate predictions at the scale of the observable universe. Calculations are generally off, as is Newtonian gravity, by at least a factor of two.  General Relativity is also theoretically based upon the warping of space, where observations to date indicate a totally "flat" observable universe with no indications of warping.

 

The third big player in modern physics is Quantum Theory and its math, quantum mechanics. There is presently no consensus version of Quantum Theory accepted (there are more than a dozen contenders). The consensus version of the math in the quantum world is called quantum mechanics. The fourth foundation theory in modern physics is particle physics theory which predicts unseen pulling forces, and particles (free quarks and "gluons") which cannot be observed independently according to theory. That which can never be observed according to theory must always be suspect.

 

I believe all four of these foundation theories in modern physics will be replaced within maybe a half century or less as discussed in other threads of this sub-forum. What do you think? 

 

I think the scientific community should put you on lifetime house arrest for your heretical (non-mainstream) beliefs...like Galileo was for his silly ideas.

 

/sarcasm

[☆ pantheory ☆]

........................ Needless to say, I'm quite sure this one article will be so exceptionally compelling that it will cause about a century of predictions to fall from their shaky, tentative foundation...........

 

 

From the press release itself (the article seen on the link) I'm fairly sure I will generally understand the major points the paper will be trying to make since I think they are well elaborated in the press release (article with link). I expect also there will be parts of the paper that I will question or disagree with, but I believe I am in general agreement with the article, and similarly will be in general agreement with the paper after I read it -- and believe similarly that SR will sooner or later be replaced by LT, or a similar aether variation thereof.

 

I believe few if any readers will consider this paper Earth-shaking. It will depend upon how many knowledgeable readers it will have, and hope that it will have many readers of all types that give them additional food for thought.

 

Nice, bombastic thread title for a paper that cannot even be referenced yet.

 

The thread title is the same as the press release title. I agree, a little too bombastic and confrontational. The title of the paper is more appropriate however, simply "Challenge to the special theory of relativity,"  not even any caps excepting for the leading word "Challenge."

[☆ pantheory ☆]

 

I think the scientific community should put you on lifetime house arrest for your heretical (non-mainstream) beliefs...like Galileo was for his silly ideas.

 

 

Would I have to wear a radio transmitting ankle bracelet? I really hate those things; I get such a rash. Could I live in the west, or would I have to live in a country and state where the age of consent for girls is fourteen or fifteen? Yes, a cruel punishment for not accepting orthodoxy,  but my inflated ego would try to make due of such a fate -- becoming a type of posthumous martyr I suspect 

[bornagainathiest]

I mean no disrespect to Pantheory in this message.

 

Of course it's right and proper that he should draw our attention to interesting articles like this.  However, it's also important to see the wider context in which such articles sit.  Challenges, claimed refutations and claimed disproofs of General and/or Special Relativity (or both) are not new things on the Internet.  Here are just a few samples.

 

Miroslav Halza

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/06/prweb12788017.htm

 

Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla

http://debunkingrelativity.com/

 

Al McDowell

http://www.spheritons.com/Home_Page.html

 

Thomas Smid

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/

 

Or Herbert Dingle

http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html

 

Or Ruggero Maria Santilli

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/

 

Or Doug Marett

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html

 

Please note that this is by no means an exhaustive list.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[☆ pantheory ☆]

I mean no disrespect to Pantheory in this message.

 

Of course it's right and proper that he should draw our attention to interesting articles like this.  However, it's also important to see the wider context in which such articles sit.  Challenges, claimed refutations and claimed disproofs of General and/or Special Relativity (or both) are not new things on the Internet.  Here are just a few samples.

 

Miroslav Halza

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/06prweb12788017.htm

 

Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla

http://debunkingrelativity.com/

 

Al McDowell

http://www.spheritons.com/Home_Page.html

 

Thomas Smid

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/

 

Or Herbert Dingle

http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html

 

Or Ruggero Maria Santilli

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/

 

Or Doug Marett

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html

 

Please note that this is by no means an exhaustive list.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yup, knocking down the top dog makes you the top dog. Trying to find fault with Einstein's theories has been a serious pastime for more than a century for this or similar reasons. In all fairness, however, others are earnestly in pursuit of the untangling logic needed to straighten out "the tangled web" that they believe Einstein weaved concerning his two theories of relativity, over-complicating our perspective of reality.

 

ps

 

Most such papers and related materials in websites like those listed about, never get published in mainstream journals, and the few that do rarely ever become accepted as being science-worthy news. So the above news report and related paper is somewhat atypical in these respects.

[☆ pantheory ☆]

Nope pantheory.

You just lost the little bit of consideration I ever gave to your comments. Now this is just  "pics of the holy spirit"   type talk.

 

This is certainly one of my favorites. Soooooooooooo Realistic, inspiring, tranquil and heavenly. Truly beautiful,     don't you think?

 

PICTURE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT REVEALING HIS PRESENCE

 

 

 Eternal Blessings and Heavenly Revelations

Being Received By the Servant Believer

 

credit to Michael K. Farrar, O.D.

and God’s Breath Publications

 

Acts 2:2-4

 

 2  Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3  They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.