Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity

Special Relativity Theory (SRT) has two postulates, one stating that the laws of physics are the same for all observers, and the other stating that the speed of light is the constant 186,000 miles per second, regardless of any reference frames. As a result of these postulates, SRT renders predictions such as: 1) No object can travel faster than 186,000 miles per second (the speed of light itself); 2) On approaching the speed of light, a moving object contracts in length in the direction of motion, while 3) a clock traveling with the object slows down; 4) The mass of an object multiplied by the square of the speed of light gives energy ( E mc2 ); i.e., mass could be converted to energy and vice versa; 5) Observers do not agree on the simultaneity of events - two events that are simultaneous for one observer might not be simultaneous for another. There are evident inconsistencies among these predictions. There is also a philosophical problem relating to the nature of reality. Could there be more than one reality in Nature; that is, can reality be subjective, and only a matter of interpretation? This paper explores the evident inconsistencies and the philosophical problem by developing arguments and providing numerical examples.

viXra, 2016

This research paper discusses the validity of Einstein’s relativity theory. It took four years of intensive work to reach the final conclusions. All assumptions of Einstein and his mathematics (where it exists) will be reviewed. Experiments done to show the validity will be restudied then we shall show their correctness under the constraints and conditions made by Einstein and show their practical and scientific value. We shall also show how much is the truthfulness of general relativity.

Five topics: A rigid body does not exist in the special theory of relativity; distant simultaneity defined with respect to a given frame of reference without any reference to synchronized clocks; challenges on Einstein's connection of synchronization and contraction; a theory of relativity without light, composition of relative velocities and space of relative velocities

Journal of Applied Sciences …, 2008

This study is a review of the theory of relativity. Einstein devised the special theory of relativity in 1905. In special relativity Einstein kept some ideas in his subconscious mind which was very important for the modification of physics. Einstein mentioned in special relativity that the mass of a body increases with an increase of the motion of the body . In fact Einstein recognized acceleration instead of momentum unknowingly. This idea was not incorporated in special theory of relativity. Classical mechanics was founded on rectilinear principles of motion. But Einstein observed that space-time is curved and all motions are curved . Einstein had an attempt to establish the curvilinear principle in physics but he could not complete his works. In Time Dilation and Length Contraction Einstein developed some concepts with a number of anomalies. Actually time dilates and contracts due to the fluctuation of gravitational influence in different space-time. In principle of equivalence Einstein explained the gravitational and inertial mass are the same . But this explanation of principle of equivalence needs more elaboration. Body possesses definite shape, size and density but it can only express mass with the help of gravitation. Beyond the gravitational field body is unable to express mass. This idea is not incorporated with the theory of principle of equivalence. Einstein formulated the general theory of relativity in 1915 combining special relativity, accelerated frame, principle of equivalence and gravitational fields. Einstein put forth three experiments for the proofs of the general theory of relativity. But the general theory which are based on assumptions beyond the principle of equivalence are not well substantiated .

Undergraduate Texts in Physics (UTP) publishes authoritative texts covering topics encountered in a physics undergraduate syllabus. Each title in the series is suitable as an adopted text for undergraduate courses, typically containing practice problems, worked examples, chapter summaries, and suggestions for further reading. UTP titles should provide an exceptionally clear and concise treatment of a subject at undergraduate level, usually based on a successful lecture course. Core and elective subjects are considered for inclusion in UTP. UTP books will be ideal candidates for course adoption, providing lecturers with a firm basis for development of lecture series, and students with an essential reference for their studies and beyond.

After 100 years, Einstein's Special Relativity Theory (SRT) is still both widely believed and widely disputed. This paper claims the cause is insufficiently precise and ambiguous wording. The deductions that form the foundation of "Special Relativity" require only the first 5 pages of SRT. While the remainder of SRT and popular SRT academic papers are replete with complex math, SRT's 5-page foundation uses only a very simple analysis of a simple imaginary experiment. Its deductions are arrived at using only high school level math. Using verbatim wording, this paper provides clarifying annotations and calculations that describe every individual assertion in the foundation. The conclusion is that the foundation clearly rejects the 3 basic postulates of SRT. Given this sound rejection, the remainder of SRT should be viewed as a misleading math exercise that develops coordinate transformations for an impossible set of physics principles. The conclusion also suggests that all uses of the SRT "beta" formula in later papers and research, that rely on SRT for the validity of the "beta" model, only lead to fictitious results.

An extensive review of Einstein's theory of special relativity and his writings from today's scientific and philosophical perspectives found that at the turn of the 20th century, the scientific and philosophical views were not sufficiently developed to understand the problems that physicists faced and that Einstein tried to solve with his theory. Regardless how brilliant a scientist he was, in his pursuit, Einstein was guided by incorrect philosophical views; views prevalent at that time. These views misled him into an incorrect method and unrealistic theory with circular definitions, inconsistencies in the explanations and principles that contradict those developed from the empirical evidence. In particular, this study found that neither Einstein nor Poincaré expressed sufficiently the " inertial frames of reference " (coordinate systems) in their respective relativity principles. They expressed them in terms of the uniform movement of translation instead of absence of external forces. Because of that they both overlooked that fields generated in one frame of reference cause forces at a distance in the other frames of reference turning them into noninertial ones. Thus, their respective principles of relativity cannot be valid for field-based processes when field is generated outside of the frame of reference. Einstein's use of his relativity principle for conditions when it cannot be valid, in combination with an incorrect idealistic ontological view of the term " Law of Nature " and insufficient rationalistic understanding of the term " time, " misled him into an incorrect method of developing his theory and to incorrect inferences of the other principles and concepts of this theory. Thus, the foundations of Einstein's theory of special relativity, his two postulates (principle of relativity and the invariance of velocity of light) as well as the relativity of simultaneity cannot be any longer justified. With that, Einstein's attempt to unify light and electro-magnetism with mechanics, his concept of light, space, time and the whole theory of relativity with its other consequences cannot correctly represent the realities of the physical world. Apart from the philosophical, conceptual and logical problems of this theory, the invariance of velocity of light is in serious need for the experimental verification or refutation. Although the technology of Einstein's time was insufficient to carry out such test, it is technologically feasible to do so today. Therefore, it is recommended, and it should be of the utmost importance, for physicists to carry out such a test today. V C 2014 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx. Résumé: Un examen approfondi de la théorie de la relativité restreinte d'Einstein et de ses e ´crits, réalisé au travers des connaissances scientifiques et philosophiques actuelles, montre qu'a ` l'orée du 20 ième siècle, les visions scientifiques et philosophiques n'e ´taient pas suffisamment développées pour comprendre les problèmes auxquels les physiciens faisaient face alors quand Einstein essayait de les résoudre avec sa théorie. Quand bien même il fut un brillant scientifique, Einstein e ´tait guidé par une approche philosophique incorrecte, approche qui e ´tait courante a ` l'e ´poque. L'environnement philosophique d'alors l'a amené a ` développer une méthode incorrecte et une théorie irréaliste basée sur des assertions, des explications inconsistantes et des principes qui contredisent ceux développés a ` partir de l'e ´vidence empirique. Cette e ´tude montre, en particulier que ni Albert Einstein ni Henri Poincaré n'ont suffisamment approfondi les " référentiels inertiels " dans leurs respectifs principes de la relativité. Ils les ont définis par le mouvement de translation uniforme au lieu de les définir par l'absence de forces extérieures. Pour cette raison, ils ont tous les deux négligé le fait que des champs générés dans un cadre de référence provoquent des forces a ` distance dans les autres cadres de référence les transformant en noninertiels. Ainsi leurs respectifs principes de la relativité ne peuvent e ˆtre valides pour des processus basés sur le champ quand le champ est généré en dehors du cadre de référence. L'utilisation par Einstein de ses principes de la relativité dans des conditions qui ne peuvent e ˆtre validées, en combinaison avec une vision ontologique incorrecte et idéaliste du terme " Loi de la Nature " et une compréhension rationnelle a) [email protected] 0836-1398/2014/27(3)/411/37/$25.00 V C 2014 Physics Essays Publication 411 PHYSICS ESSAYS 27, 3 (2014) insuffisante du terme " Temps " , l'amenèrent a ` développer sa théorie au moyen d'une méthode incorrecte et tirer des conclusions erronées sur les autres principes et concepts de sa théorie. Ainsi, les bases de la théorie d'Einstein sur la relativité restreinte, ses deux postulats (principe de la relativité et l'invariabilité de la vitesse de la lumière) ainsi que la relativité de la simultanéité ne peuvent plus e ˆtre justifiés. Avec cela, la tentative d'Einstein d'unifier lumière et e ´lectromagnétisme avec la mécanique, son concept sur la lumière, l'espace, le temps et toute la théorie sur la relativité y compris ses autres conséquences ne peuvent pas représenter les réalités du monde physique. Mis a ` part les problèmes philosophique, conceptuel et logique de sa théorie, l'invariabilité de la vitesse de la lumière a un sérieux besoin d'une vérification ou réfutation expérimentale. Mais si la technologie au temps d'Einstein e ´tait insuffisante pour mener a ` bien un tel test, c'est techniquement faisable de nos jours. C'est pourquoi, il est conseillé aux physiciens, et c'est de la plus haute importance, de procéder a ` ce test aujourd'hui.

2013