The Single Best Argument Against Special Relativity: Difference between revisions

Scientific Paper
Title	The Single Best Argument Against Special Relativity
Read in full	Link to paper (Internet Archive)
Author(s)	Ardeshir Mehta
Keywords	Special Relativity, principle of relativity, Lorentz transformation
Published	2002

← Older edit

Latest revision as of 13:56, 22 July 2026

Read the full paper here (archived copy — the original link is no longer available)

Abstract

Imagine two objects, A and B, in rectilinear motion past one another. Imagine that B has a nice big "X" marked on it. Now applying the equations of Special Relativity, how much time should it take for A to pass by the spot X marked on B, as measured by a stop watch carried on board A? Special Relativity requires that this time be calculated using the Lorentz transformation. And the Lorentz transformation requires that the stop watch should show a lesser time for this event if it is calculated under the assumption that A is moving and B is stationary, than it would if the time were calculated under the assumption that B is moving and A is stationary. Thus the Lorentz transformation requires the readings on the stop watch to be calculated to be different, depending on whether A is assumed to be moving or stationary. The Principle of Relativity, however, which affirms that there is no such thing as absolute rectilinear motion, requires that there be no way to tell which one of the two, A or B, is moving. Therefore the Principle of Relativity requires that the times are calculated to be the same, no matter whether it is assumed that A is moving and B is stationary, or that B is moving and A is stationary. But of course it is impossible, both logically and mathematically, for a single mathematical problem to have both the same and different answers. (Heck, even my twelve-year-old younger son can grasp this!) So the Theory of Special Relativity must be logically as well as mathematically flawed, and we, along with my twelve-year-old, can all see that the Emperor Albert has no clothes on.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==Abstract==
-Imagine two objects, A and B, in rectilinear motion past one another. Imagine  that B has a nice big ?X? marked on it.  Now applying the equations of Special Relativity, how much time should it take  for A to pass by the spot X marked on B, as measured by a stop watch carried on  board A? Special Relativity requires that this time be calculated using the Lorentz  transformation. And the Lorentz transformation requires that the stop watch  should show a lesser time for this event if it is calculated under the assumption  that A is moving and B is stationary, than it would if the time were calculated  under the assumption that B is moving and A is stationary. Thus the Lorentz  transformation requires the readings on the stop watch to be calculated to be  different, depending on whether A is assumed to be moving or stationary. The  Principle of Relativity, however, which affirms that there is no such thing as absolute  rectilinear motion, requires that there be no way to tell which one of the  two, A or B, is moving. Therefore the Principle of Relativity requires that the  times are calculated to be the same, no matter whether it is assumed that A is  moving and B is stationary, or that B is moving and A is stationary.  But of course it is impossible, both logically and mathematically, for a single  mathematical problem to have both the same and different answers. (Heck, even  my twelve-year-old younger son can grasp this!) So the Theory of Special Relativity  must be logically as well as mathematically flawed, and we, along with  my twelve-year-old, can all see that the Emperor Albert has no clothes on.
+Imagine two objects, A and B, in rectilinear motion past one another. Imagine  that B has a nice big "X" marked on it.  Now applying the equations of Special Relativity, how much time should it take  for A to pass by the spot X marked on B, as measured by a stop watch carried on  board A? Special Relativity requires that this time be calculated using the Lorentz  transformation. And the Lorentz transformation requires that the stop watch  should show a lesser time for this event if it is calculated under the assumption  that A is moving and B is stationary, than it would if the time were calculated  under the assumption that B is moving and A is stationary. Thus the Lorentz  transformation requires the readings on the stop watch to be calculated to be  different, depending on whether A is assumed to be moving or stationary. The  Principle of Relativity, however, which affirms that there is no such thing as absolute  rectilinear motion, requires that there be no way to tell which one of the  two, A or B, is moving. Therefore the Principle of Relativity requires that the  times are calculated to be the same, no matter whether it is assumed that A is  moving and B is stationary, or that B is moving and A is stationary.  But of course it is impossible, both logically and mathematically, for a single  mathematical problem to have both the same and different answers. (Heck, even  my twelve-year-old younger son can grasp this!) So the Theory of Special Relativity  must be logically as well as mathematically flawed, and we, along with  my twelve-year-old, can all see that the Emperor Albert has no clothes on.
 [[Category:Scientific Paper|single best argument against special relativity]]
 [[Category:Relativity|single best argument against special relativity]]