B Einstein relativity is invalid

Spikemarlene
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Need your help to unravel the claims made by a poster in my local forum, if it has any merits. I do not have the expertise to evaluate his claims but am hoping if you can give me a few points on his line of reasoning, if it is faulty or not. I have a general background in undergraduate physics.

Thanks in advance.

This is the website where the detail of the claims can be found
[Link deleted by mentor]

The author posted this in my local forum,
https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4213664

By Chan Rasjid
"I have written a short 5-page paper that explains simply why Einstein's special relativity is not a valid theory in physics. It could be downloaded as a pdf file from my website.

"The Lorentz Transformation Cannot Be Physical"
pages :5
[Link deleted by mentor]

Abstract. "The Lorentz transformation will always remain only as an abstract mathematical transformation that cannot be incorporated into any theory of physics. The reason being there is no natural principle that a mathematical transformation carries over association of physical units with real numbers from the domain space to the image space. Any application of the Lorentz transformation will only result in space and time that have no relation to our physical world. All physical theories founded on the Lorentz transformation are invalid. These include Einstein’s special relativity, particle physics, electromagnetism of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations."Chan Rasjid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Spikemarlene said:
if it has any merits

It doesn't. His basic claim is that mathematically transforming the components of a vector from one frame to another doesn't take the units along, so to speak. But if that were true, it would apply just as well to the Galilean transformations used in Newtonian physics. So if relativity is invalid by his argument, so is Newtonian physics. Yet he accepts Newtonian physics as valid.

It's not really possible to go further than that unless this person comes here himself to defend his position (if he can do so without violating PF rules).
 
Btw, I have changed the level of this thread to "B", which seems much more appropriate.
 
I'm sorry but we don't debunk pseudoscience or crackpots here at PF. Anyone claiming that relativity is invalid is simply incorrect. It's been validated an uncountable number of times (such as every time you use GPS).

Thread locked.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top