Dear Claudio,

If you are interested, here you have all the relativity with the same results, but with very different principles that in my opinion allow us to better understand certain things (light, gravity, BigBang, mass-energy)

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19015.96168

The question is posed as a challenge. Philosophers love to argue, and so I will argue.

1. [Chapter 1 (box)]: Bohr and Dirac are the realists, because their concepts match experiment, the best gauge of reality we have. Calling Bohr and Dirac "antirealists" so robs "realism" of its meaning, the assertion reduces to semantic quibbling. Quibbling naturally defies refutation, since counterarguments will be rebutted through further quibbling.

2. [Page beginning "headed by Einstein"]: Popper, a brilliant and influential writer, incorrectly claims, "the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics ... says that objective reality has evaporated..." First, the Copenhagen interpretation is not an interpretation, it is the standard procedure of quantum mechanics. Second, quantum mechanics, having been verified in uncountable experiments, is an objective description of reality, unless "objective" and "reality" have lost their usual meaning. The argument is thus again semantic quibbling.

3. [Same page]: Einstein claims, "“There is such a thing as the ‘real state’ of a physical system, which exists objectively." Ironically, Einstein has here asserted, without experimental proof, that physical systems have "real [deterministic] states", when in fact experiment refutes this.

4. [Chapter 2 (box)]: The Sagnac effect is easily explained by the constancy of the speed of light, from which can be deduced the entire mathematical formalism of Special Relativity. Look closely.

5. [same page]: Paradox b and e negate each other. That superluminal signals would propagate from future to past (paradox e) is the very reason signals can't go faster than light (b). There do exist tachyonic entities, but these are spacelike, and cannot carry information. An example is the remote end of a sweeping searchlight beam, whose sweep speed may exceed c, although any information travels at c and comes from the searchlight itself.

I could refute the whole book, but I suspect my arguments would fall on unwelcoming ears. Yet, it is the nature of philosophers to pose arguments and refute them, a sport worthy of delight.

Please examine my youtube video AMENDED SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY for the revised special theory of relativity , done and achieved almost more than a decade back.

Kathleen thanks to your answer

your observations are acute, but the challenge was related to the logical path, which starts from the work of Sexl and Mansouri and recovering the transformations of Tangherlini, proposes a solution to the many paradoxes of the SR...

Dear Claudio,

I encountered Selleri’s writings only recently, but I found his approach was intriguing- it takes the mysteries out of special relativity theory, and it is consistent with much that we observe of the universe. I haven’t run across any serious criticism or discussion of his concept.

I took some time to try to test his basic transformation equations, and got good results. I summarized my evaluation of his approach in an informal note, which I have attached.

By the way, thanks for attaching the copy of Selleri’s book- I hadn’t been able to find it on the web.

- Ian Miller

Dear Ian, I really appreciate your contribution, I am attaching an article that could be very interesting

Yuo says "I have not encountered serious criticism or discussion of his concept." this is just what I wanted to emphasize with this post, one neglects such a serious and important contribution to the physics of space and time without any motivation, yet Selleri's ideas are able to undermine the pillars of modern physics, from the big bang to relativity