Theory Of Relativity Has To Be Abandoned

I will provide just one argument, not 100, as Einstein had required, to prove that his theory of relativity is invalid.

Thus, as can be seen in §10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper the first postulate of that theory requires that the mass m of a body be represented by exactly the same quantity m in any system. However, the Lorentz transformations (which, as can be seen in that same paper, theory of relativity cannot even derive) derive the same mass in K to be beta^3m. It is impossible for one and the same mass in one and the same system K to have two different values, respectively, m and beta^3m, unless beta = 1, that is, unless the theory of relativity is invalid.

Rest mass is the same in any frame. What you are describing is 'relativistic mass', which is dependent on the relative motion of frames. Hence 'relativistic'.

In the equation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + |p|^2 the 'm' is rest mass. In the expression E = mc^2 it's not clear if the m is rest mass or relativistic mass. If it's rest mass then it's common practice to put a subscript 0 on m to show it in that expression. If you are then considering relativistic mass, you'd have E = gmc^2 where g is the Gamma factor. But at now point in any part of relativity does it say what you think it says.

Don't you think someone would have noticed that by now? That time and again we measure high velocity objects having greater inertia than when they are at rest, yet relativity mentions something about invariant mass.

Lorentz transformations arise as elements of the symmetry group of Minkowski space-time, though they were originally derived as the symmetry transformations of Maxwell's equations and so Einstein did not have to rederive them in his paper, only make reference to the paper by Fitzgerald where they were derived. Also, it's a standard homework exercise early in relativity courses to work out the group of transformations which leave the flat space-time metric invariant.

I would suggest you actually learn some special relativity before making wild claims like this. Did you not stop yourself and think "Shouldn't someone have noticed this very clear self contradiction in the last 100+ years?" or did you just think its some kind of mass conspiracy?

This post has been edited by AlphaNumeric on Oct 17 2008, 08:11 PM

You may want to learn what the theory of relativity really is first and then offer unsolicited advice to others what to learn.

The fact which I am presenting invalidates altogether also the claim that theory of relativity derives mass-energy relationship, including the notions of 'rest mass' or 'relativistic mass'. It can clearly be seen that the crucial problem I am pointing out in §10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper exists well before any mention or "derivation" of said masses.

Also, this is not a forum on sociology and how public opinion is manipulated. Therefore, stick to the argument at hand.

This post has been edited by Omnibus on Oct 17 2008, 08:25 PM

Dammit! Why was I not here for this?!

PS, omnibus - AN is right. You're getting confused with relativistic mass and rest (or invariant) mass. This is one of the reasons why I am on a crusade to ban the use of relativistic mass! It's unnecessarily confusing. The only mass that is really in relativity is invariant mass. Relativistic mass is more accurately described as a high energy effect that looks like an effective mass but is actually relativity modifying the equation for kinetic energy.

I am not confusing anything. Like I said, the concept of relativistic mass was to be derived well after the crucial error I'm pointing out. It's derivation depends on the lack of the mentioned contradiction. It isn't derived exactly becuse of the contradiction I presented. Theory of relativity has to go.

I've read the 1905 paper (in its English translation). I've read dozens of pop science books on relativity. I've read 'General Relativity' by Wald (well, much of it). I've read 'An Introduction to General Relativity' by Schutz. I've sat and passed exams on special relativity, general relativity, advanced general relativity, several kinds of relativistic field theory courses, all at Masters level, from the people who work with Hawking. Infact, I got a distinction in the black holes course Hawking used to lecture. The lecturer when I attended the course had done his PhD with Hawking and now works in the same department as him. Oh yeah. and I'm a 3rd year theoretical physics PhD student.

In Section 10 you can see that he talks about the kinetic energy of an electron being W = mc^2 ( gamma - 1). It is the difference between the relativistic mass, which is all the energy of the object, and it's rest mass, hence the -1.

Therefore the relativistic mass, mc^2 * gamma, is the mass of all energy in an object as well as it's energy by virtue of the mass it has when stationary in some given frame. Since gamma(0)=1, when the object isn't moving, it has no kinetic energy by that formula and the total energy is has comes from it's rest mass.

By the looks of it you are the one who didn't know much, if any, relativity. You fail to understand Einstein's work, you fail to realise those relations have all been experimentally checked and we have yet to find any error in them and you fail to realise you're a hypocrite for telling me not to give 'unsolicited advice to others' when you're the one who it making grand claims and telling people to not learn relativity.

Too bad it's such a damn accurate model of nature.

You may have read all these but you don’t really understand them, as is seen from your response. It still seems not to have come across to you how grave the problem I’m pointing out is. The contradiction I pointed out kills the theory of relativity without a trace—general theory, cosmology, string theories and all the rest built on its basis included. Case in point—take a look at this incoherent talk, indicating a clear misunderstanding of the matter:

This in no way explains away the obvious contradiction I pointed out that the first postulate requires the mass m to be represented as the same mass m in all systems while Lorentz transformations derive this mass to be beta^3m. Mass of one and the same body in one and the same system cannot be both m and beta^3m unless beta = 1, that is, unless theory of relativity is invalid. You cannot escape from that fact with a statement such as the quoted one.

Ah, and let me not forget—I’m not disputing the validity of the mass-energy relationship which exists trivially still in the classical Poynting vector. All I’ve shown is that the theory of relativity cannot derive this well-known years before Einstein mass-energy relationship due to a crucial contradiction which invalidates it in its entirety.

This post has been edited by Omnibus on Oct 17 2008, 10:25 PM

No, it isn't. As I've pointed out Lorentz transformations derive that the mass m of an object in one system is represented by the mass beta^3m in another system. First postulate of the theory of relativity, however, requires that the mass m of that object be represented by the same mass m in any other system. This is a crucial contradiction which invalidates the theory because one and the same object in one and the same system cannot have at the same time mass m and mass beta^3m, unless beta = 1, that is, unless the theory of relativity is invalid.

The outcome from the theory requiring that one and the same object in one and the same system have at the same time mass m and mass beta^3m is nonsense, not "a damn accurate model of nature".

No experiment is necessary to detect that the theory of relativity leads to nonsense. All you need to do is take a look at §10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper and convince yourself that the contradiction in question really exists.

There have never been nor can there ever be experimental confirmations of the theory of relativity. Obvious nonsense such as the one under discussion can never be resolved through an experiment. Theory of relativity goes because of its own internal contradictions.

Hi Omnibus, AlphaNumeric, prometheus et al,

Here is another quote taken from a reference book in the field by JA Wheeler...

This old chestnut is a perennial. The equation of equivalence of mass and energy is "misleading" to say the least. What really exists is relativistic energy. There is some aspect of this phenomenon that could be measured as mass (such as the binding energy in nuclei, but that ultimately is due to relativistic motion in the nucleus.
The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year - L.B. Okun 2006
This will help put "relativistic mass" into some perspective. It is referred to as "The pedagogical virus" in the abstract by Okun. If Einstein did not like it and Wheeler did not like it and everyone continues to misuse it then there is an argument to replace it with the "invariant mass"... the rest mass in the rest frame of the system. The"best" resource on this topic is in Lev B Okun's Article in Physics Today June 1989 titled "The Concept of Mass" but you need to pay money for it. Obviously this position is very extreme... what you really need to understand is what that relativistic mass actually means. See this extracted image...
e is mc squared?
There is a "common" use of this to indicate that mass is directly convertible into energy and visa versa according to the 'simple" equation E = mc². The concept of "rest mass" is "bad" while the concept of "rest energy" is good. This is because "mass" is an invariant in all systems while "energy" is a four-vector and depends on the system it is measured in. This is the relativistic principle where energy has no absolute frame of reference but is "relative" just like other measurables. According to one version of the equation E0 = mc² (eq1) (an accurate version of the famous equation) ... m is just the mass and is an invariant constant and E0 is the rest energy and the full relativistic equations describe a massless photon. According to the other version of the equation E = mc² (eq2) (the one many people use), m depends on energy (or velocity) and the photon has a mass m = E/c². This leads to inconsistency if the convention is not adhered to correctly (photons do not have mass).

In the paper... "Natura non facit saltus: An Uncommon Way to Relativistic Dynamics" B.Rothenstein, I.Zaharie, D. Păunescu said...

This advice is good advice and I hope this helps.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Oct 18 2008, 01:12 AM

This quote doesn’t do the job of overturning my argument. Again, for the third time, the contradiction I’m pointing out is present well before any mention or “derivation” of concepts such as ‘rest’ mass or ‘relativistic’ mass or any such nonsense. This wouldn’t be nonsense if the contradiction pointed out by me weren’t there. It is there, though and you have to allow it to sink in. The contradiction in question is sufficient to invalidate the entire theory of relativity.

This quote is also inconsequential. Read carefully what I write and restrain from giving irrelevant quotes.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I am providing. The argument I provide invalidates the theory before any discussion of the above mentioned matters. The theory fails well before that. No such concepts as those mentioned in the quote can follow from a failed theory.

Pure blabber. This doesn’t address the problem I’m pointing to one bit. At the stage where the internal contradiction I’m demonstrating there isn’t an inkling of ‘rest’ mass, ‘relativistic’ mass or what have you. On the contrary, such notions may come about only if there were no such internal contradiction. There is, however, a crucial internal contradiction and the theory must be abandoned before ever having the opportunity to explore such concepts.

The contradiction I’m presenting invalidates the theory in a categorical way and, as seen, that cannot be saved by quoting random passages.

What can be done now is to wrap up this thread with a definitive conclusion that the theory of relativity must be rejected because of at least one crucial internal contradiction discovered in it (one is enough for it to go; even Einstein agrees with that).

Of course, there may be some who would be curious to find out what’s the origin of that contradiction and, just for entertainment, try to observe numerous other blatant internal contradictions this failed so-called “theory” of relativity is built on.

Physicists have lost a lot of time and forces, studying the nonsense. They will disagree with you. Therefore politicians should forbid the relativity.

Even more time has been lost studying phlogiston, caloric theory, let alone Aristotelian geocentric system etc. However, there has never been such an obviously flawed "theory" as the theory of relativity gaining so much ground in the mainstream science. Even astrology or clairvoyance, as wrong as they are, aren't based on such blatant internal contradictions as the theory of relativity. It's OK for the physicists not to agree, as long as they provide argument. They can't and the recourse of many of them in trying to defend the indefensible is beyond commentary. A glimpse of it is sensed in this thread as well.

This is just too typical of the greater spotted crank

i.e; despite zero comprehension of relativity, find audaciously stunning flaws in Einsteins work.

The only contradiction present here; is simply that this terminal idiot can actually mange to operate a PC.

This is an ad hominem attack which serves as no argument to explain away the crucial flaw I demonstrated, invalidating the so-called “theory” of relativity.

Only delirious person can understand the relativity.