#### TheAtheistKing

Hello everyone, I am new to this forum.

In oct 2000 I submitted a paper to the European journal of physics on the non relativity of simultaneity. Essentially, the paper didn't deal with the theory of relativity, so much as it did with the issue of simultaneity.

The paper was not published, however since that time I have expanded on my original paper, and focused more on the incorrectness of the relativity of simultaneity. I would like to discuss my work here, as I am preparing to resubmit the paper to the Journal. I would like to have some general reaction to the material that is going to be submitted to them.

The original paper didn't focus on time dilation, but rather it focused upon length contraction. There is a simple way to understand why length isn't relative, and the answer has to do with simultaneity.

The definition of an inertial reference frame is a frame in which Newton's laws are valid. Now, suppose that F1 is an inertial refefence frame, and F2 is moving at a constant speed relative to F1. It will follow that F2 is also an inertial reference frame.

Now consider a ruler R1 at rest in some inertial reference frame F1. There are no forces acting upon this ruler, because we have stipulated that it is at rest in this frame i.e. v=0. Now, suppose that another ruler R2 has an identical length to R1, if the rulers are at rest with each other. Thus, the ends of the rulers can be made to 'coincide' as illustrated below:

R1: A....................B

R2: A`...................B`

Now, suppose that the same two rulers are now in uniform relative motion to each other, so that each is still in an inertial reference frame. They are now in relative motion, and the relative speed is v.

Assumption 1: The Lorentz Fitzgerald length contraction formula is true.

Consider things now from the point of view of ruler 1 at rest and ruler two moving from right to left as illustrated below. Ruler 2 is length contracted as shown below:

Initial state

R1: A....................B

R2:______________A`.....B`

Inermediate state

R1: A....................B

R2: _________A`.....B`

Final state

R1: A....................B

R2: A`.....B`

As you can see, the order of states is very clear. B coincides with B` BEFORE A coincides with A`.

Now consider things from the point of view of ruler 2 at rest and ruler 1 moving from left to right as illustrated below. In this frame ruler one is length contracted, and the order of states is shown below:

Initial state

R1:A.....B

R2:______A`....................B`

Intermediate state

R1:______A.....B

R2:______A`....................B`

Final state

R1:_________________A.....B

R2:______A`....................B`

As you can see, A coincides with A` before B coincides with B`.

Thus, if assumption 1 is true, then there are different states of the universe X,Y, such that X before Y AND Y before X. This should be regarded as impossible, and thus SR can be overthrown without having to think about the time dilation formula at all. This then is the basis of my approach to toppling the theory of special relativity.

The proper conclusion is that the ends of the rulers coincide simultaneously in all reference frames, not just inertial reference frames. In other words simultaneity is absolute, not relative.

I think this is enough to start off the discussion. At the very least, this should help you understand how come the conclusions of SR are so weird. My current paper goes into clock rates, inertial reference frames, synchronicity, location of measurements in a frame, derivation of the length contraction formula and time dilation formula using the basic postulate of SR which is that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and a few other things which could be regarded as new. I refer to the new theory as state theory, and regard it as the only alternative to relativity theory.

I will start the thread by asking a question. Who here understands the logic of my argument, which is that we needn't worry about the time dilation formula in our approach to overthrowing SR?

Thanks

In oct 2000 I submitted a paper to the European journal of physics on the non relativity of simultaneity. Essentially, the paper didn't deal with the theory of relativity, so much as it did with the issue of simultaneity.

The paper was not published, however since that time I have expanded on my original paper, and focused more on the incorrectness of the relativity of simultaneity. I would like to discuss my work here, as I am preparing to resubmit the paper to the Journal. I would like to have some general reaction to the material that is going to be submitted to them.

The original paper didn't focus on time dilation, but rather it focused upon length contraction. There is a simple way to understand why length isn't relative, and the answer has to do with simultaneity.

The definition of an inertial reference frame is a frame in which Newton's laws are valid. Now, suppose that F1 is an inertial refefence frame, and F2 is moving at a constant speed relative to F1. It will follow that F2 is also an inertial reference frame.

Now consider a ruler R1 at rest in some inertial reference frame F1. There are no forces acting upon this ruler, because we have stipulated that it is at rest in this frame i.e. v=0. Now, suppose that another ruler R2 has an identical length to R1, if the rulers are at rest with each other. Thus, the ends of the rulers can be made to 'coincide' as illustrated below:

R1: A....................B

R2: A`...................B`

Now, suppose that the same two rulers are now in uniform relative motion to each other, so that each is still in an inertial reference frame. They are now in relative motion, and the relative speed is v.

Assumption 1: The Lorentz Fitzgerald length contraction formula is true.

Consider things now from the point of view of ruler 1 at rest and ruler two moving from right to left as illustrated below. Ruler 2 is length contracted as shown below:

Initial state

R1: A....................B

R2:______________A`.....B`

Inermediate state

R1: A....................B

R2: _________A`.....B`

Final state

R1: A....................B

R2: A`.....B`

As you can see, the order of states is very clear. B coincides with B` BEFORE A coincides with A`.

Now consider things from the point of view of ruler 2 at rest and ruler 1 moving from left to right as illustrated below. In this frame ruler one is length contracted, and the order of states is shown below:

Initial state

R1:A.....B

R2:______A`....................B`

Intermediate state

R1:______A.....B

R2:______A`....................B`

Final state

R1:_________________A.....B

R2:______A`....................B`

As you can see, A coincides with A` before B coincides with B`.

Thus, if assumption 1 is true, then there are different states of the universe X,Y, such that X before Y AND Y before X. This should be regarded as impossible, and thus SR can be overthrown without having to think about the time dilation formula at all. This then is the basis of my approach to toppling the theory of special relativity.

The proper conclusion is that the ends of the rulers coincide simultaneously in all reference frames, not just inertial reference frames. In other words simultaneity is absolute, not relative.

I think this is enough to start off the discussion. At the very least, this should help you understand how come the conclusions of SR are so weird. My current paper goes into clock rates, inertial reference frames, synchronicity, location of measurements in a frame, derivation of the length contraction formula and time dilation formula using the basic postulate of SR which is that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and a few other things which could be regarded as new. I refer to the new theory as state theory, and regard it as the only alternative to relativity theory.

I will start the thread by asking a question. Who here understands the logic of my argument, which is that we needn't worry about the time dilation formula in our approach to overthrowing SR?

Thanks

Last edited by a moderator: