Relativity is wrong

[mahesh khati]

Please refer first paper on web site www.maheshkhati.com which proves that Einstein theory of relativity is wrong.

1. First chapter proves that force perpendicular to motion decreases with increasing velocity. Means, work done decreases as velocity increases. Means, consumption of energy decreases as velocity increases but as per strong equivalence principle of mass & energy of relativity, consumption of energy should be increases, not decreases as velocity increases. This makes Einstein relativity wrong.

Before year in discussion of this forum some says that you’re using mathematics of school. So, I refer standard text book of relativity of Msc in math 3 & 4, I proves that mathematics of standard test book of relativity also gives same result.

1. In second chapter, I proved that relative velocity can be more than light velocity.
2. Some says that the frame in which velocity is more than light is non-inertial frame. So, in chapter 3, I proved that we can not differentiate between inertial & non-inertial frame of references. Inertial frame is completely relativistic concept & happens due to local relative effect.
3. In chapter 4, I proved that all relative inertial frames are not same but some of it is more special.
4. In chapter 5, I prove that photon can not be a bundle of energy.
5. Until now it is accepted that photon has dual nature without any explanation. How single photon moves from both slits in interference experiment and form a interference pattern can not be explain by any logic in science but excepted as fact.. It is explain in this chapter. ( In future same logic can used to explain instantanious quantum entangle which is also problem in physics)

This paper gives solution to problem of dark matter which is impossible to explain until now.

I know in future experimentally we will prove the Einstein is wrong. Experiment of quantum entangle is one of them.

[ajb]

Send your "paper" to a reputable journal and see what happens. Just a quick glance at it suggests it is of poor quality. This thread will be moved to speculations I am sure.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations.

Please do not post new theories in the main fora. Also would you take a moment to read the specific guidelines of the Speculations Forum

Speculations Forum Rules

[John Cuthber]

I'm not certain, but I think the first error is on the first page.

You have neglected to take account of the change in g with velocity.

 

Since relativity has been tested countless times over the years we know it is correct.

The most widespread use of it is in the GPS system and since that works, relativity must work.

Your paper does not agree with reality.

This is not because reality is wrong.

 

I may be mistaken in identifying the problem but that's your job, not mine.

[Sensei]

Means, work done decreases as velocity increases. Means, consumption of energy decreases as velocity increases but as per strong equivalence principle of mass & energy of relativity, consumption of energy should be increases, not decreases as velocity increases. This makes Einstein relativity wrong.

 

If you have object at rest, how much energy you must spend to accelerate it to v=1 m/s?

Repeat calcs with acceleration from v=1 to v=2 m/s

Repeat calcs with acceleration from v=2 to v=4 m/s

Then with any v you wish.

 

Even in Newton's mechanics, energy is approaching infinity the higher is velocity.

 

That's why cars, airplanes, space ships have natural limit of speed. Their engine can't provide more energy per unit of time to accelerate vehicle even further.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Sensei

[timo]

Was about time that someone on the Internet finally finds out that relativity is wrong.

[John Cuthber]

Was about time that someone on the Internet finally finds out that relativity is wrong.

Let us know if that actually happens.

[xyzt]

Please refer first paper on web site www.maheshkhati.com which proves that Einstein theory of relativity is wrong.

No, it only proves that your understanding of relativity is wrong.

[Bignose]

If you are correct, you should be able to fulfill this easily. Let's see a plot with 3 sets of data: experimental data, the prediction from general relativity and the prediction based on your idea. Demonstrate that your idea makes better predictions than GR.

 

I suggest you start with: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 wherein a lot of these graphs are already made and demonstrate that GR makes excellent predictions that agree with measured values.

[between3and26characterslon]

My question would be (amongst the many many others) two objects of the same mass in the same gravitational field for the same time will experience the same force acting upon them.

 

If one of those masses is moving (i.e the one on the train) it gains mass so breaks the string and kills the cockroach, however this moving mass is time dilated relative to the Padre therefore it is not experiencing the gravitational force for the same amount of time. its gain in mass and reduction in time would probably exactly counteract each other and so the string would not break. Is the force acting upon it therefore the same in both frames?

 

 

Edited for spelling

Edited July 28, 2014 by between3and26characterslon

[mahesh khati]

Many friends has same thoughts as you have. So, I actually taken into account the time dilution in all 4 mathematics posted in first chapter of paper but I was surprise to find that perpendicular force atually decrases as velocity increases. This force may be gravity or may be force applied by old man on cart moving perpendicular to the motion of train (observer).

Change in the force create problem because due to it, there is action, work & consumption of energy happens etc.

[Endy0816]

You had to have flubbed the math somewhere.

 

It permits our devices to function(GPS). It can be observed in nature(Muon Experiment). It has been specifically measured via atomic clock.

 

You are arguing against Reality.

[Strange]

This makes Einstein relativity wrong.

 

As relativity is not wrong, it is clear that you have made one or more errors.

 

Perhaps you should learn a little humility and ask for help, rather than repeatedly embarrassing yourself in front of the the whole world!

Edited July 30, 2014 by Strange

[xyzt]

Please refer first paper on web site www.maheshkhati.com which proves that Einstein theory of relativity is wrong.

1. First chapter proves that force perpendicular to motion decreases with increasing velocity. Means, work done decreases as velocity increases. Means, consumption of energy decreases as velocity increases but as per strong equivalence principle of mass & energy of relativity, consumption of energy should be increases, not decreases as velocity increases. This makes Einstein relativity wrong.

I picked one claim, at random. Work (like energy) is frame dependent, so it MUST change with v. This is your first mistake.

Work done by the force perpendicular on the direction of motion is NULL. So, it cannot "decrease as v increases". This is your second mistake.

I did not bother reading past that.

 

PS: I noticed that you "published" a "method for angle trisection". It would be good for your education to learn that this problem has been proven impossible to solve. That was in 1837, almost 200 years ago.

Edited July 30, 2014 by xyzt

[Strange]

PS: I noticed that you "published" a "method for angle trisection". It would be good for your education to learn that this problem has been proven impossible to solve. That was in 1837, almost 200 years ago.

 

There is an entertaining article by Underwood Dudley, who has written a lot about math cranks, on some of the "trisectors" he has communicated with.

http://www.ufv.ca/media/faculty/gregschlitt/information/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf

 

Several of the traits of these people will be familiar...

Please refer first paper on web site www.maheshkhati.com which proves that Einstein theory of relativity is wrong.

 

I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Cranks-Spectrum-Underwood-Dudley/dp/0883855070

[Bignose]

As relativity is not wrong,

It is very pedantic, and for that I apologize, but from a certain point of view, relativity is wrong. It is at least incomplete. It's incompatible with QM today. So we know it isn't "not wrong".

 

It IS, however, supremely successful are making predictions in its domain. That is undeniable -- the link I presented above. And our average relativity denier almost never presents a model, and those that do, their models usually make far worse predictions.

 

But, I think that it is important to not just write "relativity is not wrong" and nothing else. But to be more explicit about where relativity is wrong and where is it supremely successful.

[Strange]

It is very pedantic, and for that I apologize, but from a certain point of view, relativity is wrong. It is at least incomplete. It's incompatible with QM today. So we know it isn't "not wrong".

 

It IS, however, supremely successful are making predictions in its domain. That is undeniable -- the link I presented above. And our average relativity denier almost never presents a model, and those that do, their models usually make far worse predictions.

 

But, I think that it is important to not just write "relativity is not wrong" and nothing else. But to be more explicit about where relativity is wrong and where is it supremely successful.

 

I can't argue with any of that. All theories are "wrong" in that they are provisional, limited in their domain of applicability, etc.

 

It is, however, not as grossly wrong (and inconsistent) as the OP would like to believe.

[xyzt]

 

There is an entertaining article by Underwood Dudley, who has written a lot about math cranks, on some of the "trisectors" he has communicated with.

http://www.ufv.ca/media/faculty/gregschlitt/information/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf

 

Several of the traits of these people will be familiar...

 

I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Cranks-Spectrum-Underwood-Dudley/dp/0883855070

Funny article, I liked it.

[John Cuthber]

The OP's space gun dea is also interesting, the comments from the people to whom he sent it are most informative- I particularly liked the one that points out that the payload would disintegrate.

[timo]

 

There is an entertaining article by Underwood Dudley, who has written a lot about math cranks, on some of the "trisectors" he has communicated with.

http://www.ufv.ca/media/faculty/gregschlitt/information/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf

Great reading, especially since it appears to build upon a large amount of experience (personally meeting the people was a surprising level of involvement I had not expected). A keeper for my PDF collection and also a text that makes you think - even if the number of such cases is probably low compared to total society. I was a bit disappointed that "be rude" turned out to be the only non-case-specific lemma, though. Natural sciences are probably less suited to be put into a computer since you only get out what you put in - and it is usually the "what is put in" that is the matter of debate. I was hoping for some magical insight/guide until the very end.

[StringJunky]

It is very pedantic, and for that I apologize, but from a certain point of view, relativity is wrong. It is at least incomplete. It's incompatible with QM today. So we know it isn't "not wrong".

Might it not be possible though that scientists, in the search for unification, are trying to 'trisect' gravity with the the other three forces and GR is not wrong? I very much liked that article Strange linked to, any of the cases mentioned could be an allegory for ultimately fruitless research in any field.

 

I think it is incorrect to treat 'wrong' and 'incomplete' as synonyms. I think GR epitomises this distinction because it seems so beautifully accurate within its domain.

Edited July 31, 2014 by StringJunky

[Bignose]

Well. At least one key difference is that there is not a formal proof that there is no model combining GR and QM like there is against trisecting an angle with straight edge and compass. I think most physicists feel that there is a model out there - string theory has been advertised as the best candidate for a while now - though there isn't any model that is blatantly obvious.

[Strange]

I think it is incorrect to treat 'wrong' and 'incomplete' as synonyms. I think GR epitomises this distinction because it seems so beautifully accurate within its domain.

 

Which is why I responded to the OP's use of "wrong." If he had said "incomplete" then my reaction might have been "of course, but not in the way you claim".

 

This is generally true of scientific theories. I wouldn't say Newtonian gravity is wrong - it works very well in many applications.

 

The number of scientific theories that have turned out to be completely wrong are very few and far between. Phlogiston might be the most recent example...

[Bignose]

Which is why I responded to the OP's use of "wrong." If he had said "incomplete" then my reaction might have been "of course, but not in the way you claim".

 

This is generally true of scientific theories. I wouldn't say Newtonian gravity is wrong - it works very well in many applications.

 

The number of scientific theories that have turned out to be completely wrong are very few and far between. Phlogiston might be the most recent example...

Yes. I think we are all saying the same thing. 'Wrong' is a very general word. As I pointed out above, from a certain point of view, there is a certain amount of wrongness. But it also clearly isn't completely wrong, as it is correct in its domain of validity.

 

All I am lobbying for is when we respond to the 'trisectors', that we make sure we are extremely careful about our use of the words. That we represent science completely fairly.

 

Writing things like "relativity is not wrong" and leaving just at that only feeds the reputation of science as ivory tower 'preists' that dictate what is and isn't wrong.

 

Writing out "relativity has proven to be supremely successful in its domain" gives a more complete answer and supports the philosophy of science of being most interested in prediction accuracy.

[mahesh khati]

I picked one claim, at random. Work (like energy) is frame dependent, so it MUST change with v. This is your first mistake.

Work done by the force perpendicular on the direction of motion is NULL. So, it cannot "decrease as v increases". This is your second mistake.

I did not bother reading past that.

 

PS: I noticed that you "published" a "method for angle trisection". It would be good for your education to learn that this problem has been proven impossible to solve. That was in 1837, almost 200 years ago.

 

Consider, observer is in rest train on the platform & on the platform one old man is pulling cart in perpendicular direction to length of train then in that frame of reference

the work done by old man = force x displacement of cart on platform in that rest frame

I think above mathematics is simple & clear.

Second condition:-

Now, Consider train is moving with constant velocity V then for observer in train watching the same event then due to relativity. Force (force perpendicular to train motion) decreases & displacement remain same as contraction of space is not happening in that direction. So, product of force & displacement due to force applied by old man in that frame decrease. So, for observer in train work done by old man decreases

.

Edited August 2, 2014 by mahesh khati