2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen - Kritische Stimmen zur ...

My point in all this is that to say RT has been 'proved
by science' is to raise grave doubts, if not eyebrows or
laughter. [...]
RT holds that the speed of light is invariant no matter
what the reference frame. This notion is bound up
with the theory that objects 'contract' when approaching
the speed of light (the 'Lorentz transformation') - a
necessity if the speed of light is to remain invariant to
all observers. My objection to this is that it is just plain
silly. It has the sound of an ad hoc explanation whose
purpose is to cover up for other inadequacies ... [...]
RT holds that time slows down for objects accelerated
to near the speed of light. But this again smacks
of gross silliness - does anyone seriously think that
my twin brother, if packed off in a space ship accelerated
to near the speed of light which goes to some distant
star and then returns to earth after a few years, is going
to be physically younger than me? It sounds like just
another ad hoc explanation intended to cover for theoretical
error. [...]
The existence of the ether has apparently been proved
by the experiments of Dayton Miller, and this disproves
the major basis for RT, namely, the (erroneous) results
of the Michelson-Morley experiments. But if the ether
exists, then this is proof of the universe's absolute spatial
framework (as opposed to the relativistic one): If the
universe is immersed in a 'jelly-bowl' of ether, then the
ether provides a physical framework for 'absolute' position
and movement. [...]
Einstein has been accused of plagiarism, and he was
certainly guilty of it in at least the case of having stolen
E=mc2 from another researcher without acknowledgement.
[...]
I do know that a small number of qualified investigators
have been convinced that RT is full of serious
error, and that some impressive works have been published
on this subject. But I also know that questions
about RT, like questions about many other Establishment
'givens', have been suppressed, hushed up, poopooed,
and generally relegated to the cold back burner
of a stove that has been left in a junkyard to rust.
In short, RT is just one more instanace of an intellectual
Establishment whose corruption is so insufferably
fetid as to induce one to barf at both ends."
Bryant, Steven B. 2003
Reexamining special relativity: revealing and correcting
SR's mathematical inconsistency / Steven B.
Bryant. - [USA]: WWW 2003. 40 S.
URL: http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/
Bryant.Relativity.08072005.pdf.
SRT. LORTF. RAUM. ZEIT. MATH.
S. 1: "Einstein's Special Relativity transformation equations
are the foundation of the modern understanding
of space and time. These equations are believed to be
mathematically consistent. Here we find that the com-
monly accepted Special Relativity equations are not
mathematically consistent and were created using steps
that include subtle, yet significantly important, mathematical
errors. Because these findings are mathematical
in nature, they can be confirmed independently and are
not dependent on any physics terminology associated
with Special Relativity. This discovery, and the required
correction, has implications on the predictive characteristics
of the equations as well as on our theoretical
understanding of space and time."
Bryant, Steven B. 2005
Communicating special relativity theory's mathematical
inconsistencies / Steven B. Bryant. - [USA]:
WWW 2005. 16 S.
Quelle: http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/
Bryant.Challenging%20Relativity.08072005.REV%203.pdf
SRT. MATH.
S. 1: "Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is believed
to be mathematically consistent. Here we find subtle
and difficult to detect mathematical mistakes in each of
Einstein's derivations. In his 1912 paper, the mistake is
traced to the misuse of set algebra instead of statement
algebra. Specifically, he uses the "=" relation on the
Real set instead of the "=" relation on the Binary set,
incorrectly establishing the equivalence of equations.
Because the two "=" relations operate on different sets,
they cannot be used interchangeably."
S. 14-15: "Conclusion. - The goal of this paper
was to highlight and communicate the mathematical
inconsistencies in Einstein's derivations. We have
analyzed Einstein's derivations to reveal mathematical
errors in each. Each challenge satisfies the success
criteria since they are not based on the colloquial meaning
of any variable or equation and can be mathematically
verified.
While Einstein's equations provide predictions that
are sufficiently close to the experimental results [25], the
theory itself is challenged on mathematical consistency
grounds. No amount of experimental evidence can make
an internally inconsistent theory correct, no matter how
"close" the theory may be in its predictive characteristics.
A complete analysis of the mathematical correction,
the meaning of the corrected equations, and the relationship
of the corrected equations to existing experimental
results are beyond the scope of this paper and are explained
in Reexamining Special Relativity. Import-antly,
the author's alternative theory, as presented in Reexamining
Special Relativity, remains consistent with the
experimental results while being mathematically distinguishable
from SRT."
Textversion 1.2 - 2012 85
G. O. Mueller: SRT Kap. 4-Erg..