I think that I have proved that the Special Relativity Theory (SRT) is not correct. The proof is based on the fact that a clock (which is a highly deterministic Cesium 133 atomic clock) will not go through the clock re-phasing transformation which is required for SRT to be correct. The re-phasing is a derived requirement based on the condition that the speed of light "c" has the same value in all inertial frames of reference.

 

I have a standing offer of $5k for the first person to show that I'm wrong about SRT. I'll send copies of my .ppt slides and published articles addressing the SRT problem to anyone who asks for them.

 

Emaill me at: tmorton9@cox.net

will not go through the clock re-phasing transformation which is required for SRT to be correct.

 

ummm maybe you are refferring to something i already know but in different terms but i've never heard of a 'clock re-phasing transformation' in relativity.

 

also, the wording of your statement leads me to think you are talking about an experiment where the clock changes velocity relative to the observer. if this is the case then of course special relativity doesn't apply, you would need to use general relativity.

 

why don't you just post the proof that it is not correct here instead of the whole email thing. this is a debate forum and we can not debate what we have no knowledge of.

You should find this guy Farsight and talk to him. You two would totally get along.

I have a standing offer of $5k for the first person to show that I'm wrong about SRT.

Who's gonna judge? Do you have to accept that you're wrong or is it enough if someone with a credible background in physics plays the judge (and what would a credible background/person be for you)?

you know its funny, but people don't seem to realise that if special relativity weren't true then E&M as we understand it wuold be completely off.

ummm maybe you are refferring to something i already know but in different terms but i've never heard of a 'clock re-phasing transformation' in relativity.

 

I've never heard of one, either.

The re-phasing is a derived requirement based on the condition that the speed of light "c" has the same value in all inertial frames of reference.

 

As far as I have heard, the speed of light "c", when " measured " , has the same value in all inertial frames of reference.

 

Thus this does not mean that light actually travels across any inertial frame, at a relative "c" velocity, but that it is only "measured" to be so !