There is a rigid agreement between SR and the transition matrix B applied to study the energy density scattering field in 4D x-t space. An adequate algorithm [1,2,3] shows that the answer is yes specific to this particular spatio-temporal algorithm but the question arises: must any algorithm describing physical phenomena in the x-t space be relativistic invariant?
[1,2,3] A Rigorous Reformulation of Einstein's Derivation of... - Zenodo
Researchgate, Zenodo, ijisrt review ..etc
There's no such notion as ``validation'', how quantities transform under Lorentz transformations is, now, known.
It is possible to describe violations of Lorentz invariance, also.
Yes, it can be but we need to understand the special theory of relativity parameters correctly then we can easily make it. Ismail Abbas Stam Nicolis
The properties of the Lorentz group are known, as is how to write equations that are invariant under them as is how to parametrize deviations.
SRT leads to a logical contradiction - the paradox of twins. So, a simple algorithm shows the fallacy of this theory.
"SRT leads to a logical contradiction"
SRT has been proven to be mathematically consistent, in other words, without logical contradictions. Therefore the above claim is simply wrong.
SRT from the very beginning was logically inconsistent (like twice two five) and should have been immediately discarded. But they made an exception to the rule for her -- they put her in textbooks.
>>>SRT has been proven to be mathematically consistent, in other words, without logical contradictions.
Please take a look
Preprint Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory
#Lev Verkhovsky: I had indeed a look at your paper. Actually, I did not find in it any justification for your claim that "SRT from the very beginning was logically inconsistent".
In your paper you propose a variable speed of light and modify the Lorentz transformation by a speed-dependent factor.
Of course, you are free to study any modifications of SRT you want. But then you should be able to show that these changes do not affect the results of standard experiments carried out to test special relativity. If you can't, your theory would be easy to disprove experimentally.
Walter Smilga
>>>Actually, I did not find in it any justification for your claim that "SRT from the very beginning was logically inconsistent".
I believe SRT is completely wrong for the simple reason that it is based on incorrect transformations. Change the formulas of transformations and you will get a new physics. That's what I'm trying to do. I think I have achieved quite a lot (I`ll only mention the destruction of the ridiculous paradoxes of the SRT).
"I believe SRT is completely wrong for the simple reason that it is based on incorrect transformations."
Then, why don't you present a mathematical proof that the Lorentz transformations are incorrect or that Einstein's derivation of them is flawed? SRT is based on logic, not on beliefs.
You certainly get a "new physics" when you drop the constancy of the speed of light. But what does that have to do with physical reality?
Based on speed of flashlight, make SRT is wrong.
Whole century science is looking at speed artificial light, not sunlight.
SRT is not science...
Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon
Math is the greatest tool for our innovation, but it is wrong tool for nature.
Nature cannot be describe by a flat, static, one dimension math that it has been written in past, for nature that it is changing constantly.
https://www.academia.edu/44088541/Hydrogens_Journey_in_the_Quantum_Universe
- Badges
- Science topic