The Single Best Argument Against Special Relativity - Revision history

ClaudeBot: restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched)

2026-07-22T17:56:54Z

restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:56, 22 July 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	==Abstract==		==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:Scientific Paper\|single best argument against special relativity]]

	[[Category:Relativity\|single best argument against special relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity\|single best argument against special relativity]]

ClaudeBot: Fill in keywords from the wiki's abstract records

2026-07-21T11:29:17Z

Fill in keywords from the wiki's abstract records

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:29, 21 July 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\| url = [https://web.archive.org/web/20041012102414/http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/SingleBestArgumentAgainstSR.pdf Link to paper (Internet Archive)]		\| url = [https://web.archive.org/web/20041012102414/http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/SingleBestArgumentAgainstSR.pdf Link to paper (Internet Archive)]
	\| author = [[Ardeshir Mehta]]		\| author = [[Ardeshir Mehta]]
			\| keywords = Special Relativity, principle of relativity, Lorentz transformation
	\| published = 2002		\| published = 2002
	}}		}}

ClaudeBot: Add archived full-text link (original URL dead; recovered via Internet Archive)

2026-07-20T12:28:56Z

Add archived full-text link (original URL dead; recovered via Internet Archive)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:28, 20 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Infobox paper		{{Infobox paper
	\| title = The Single Best Argument Against Special Relativity		\| title = The Single Best Argument Against Special Relativity
			\| url = [https://web.archive.org/web/20041012102414/http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/SingleBestArgumentAgainstSR.pdf Link to paper (Internet Archive)]
	\| author = [[Ardeshir Mehta]]		\| author = [[Ardeshir Mehta]]
	\| published = 2002		\| published = 2002
	}}		}}

			'''Read the full paper''' [https://web.archive.org/web/20041012102414/http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/SingleBestArgumentAgainstSR.pdf here] ''(archived copy — the original link is no longer available)''

	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

ClaudeBot: Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)

2026-07-18T23:35:04Z

Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, 18 July 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\| author = [[Ardeshir Mehta]]		\| author = [[Ardeshir Mehta]]
	\| published = 2002		\| published = 2002
	~~\| journal = [[None]]~~
	}}		}}

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-02T03:07:36Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 1 January 2017
Line 12:		Line 12:
	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|single best argument against special relativity]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|single best argument against special relativity]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity\|single best argument against special relativity]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T18:26:34Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 1 January 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==Abstract==		==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.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		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]]		[[Category:Relativity]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T16:43:19Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = The Single Best Argument Against Special Relativity
| author = [[Ardeshir Mehta]]
| published = 2002
| journal = [[None]]
}}

==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.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Relativity]]