Inconsistencies in Special Relativity’s Treatment of Time:

Soumendra Nath Thakur

February 28, 2025

Dear Mr. Zoie Mezhevchuk posed an important question regarding anomalies or inconsistencies in Special Relativity (SR). In response, I present the following list of inconsistencies, particularly concerning SR's treatment of time:

List of some Inconsistencies in Special Relativity

Failure to Invalidate Classical Abstract Time

Special Relativity (SR) introduced a new concept of time without first invalidating the classical notion of abstract time. Without a clear refutation, classical abstract time remains a valid interpretation. SR does not provide a direct answer to the question: Why is classical abstract time incorrect? This omission creates an unresolved ambiguity.

Inconsistent Adoption of Relativistic Time

While SR dismisses the independence of classical abstract time, it introduces an alternative "natural time" without logically resolving the conflict between the two. This leads to an inconsistent relativistic time framework that does not align with classical abstract time.

Imposition of a Dilatable Time Concept

Time, or cosmic time, as perceived by humans, is an abstract, Hyperdimensional concept that emerges as a consequence of changes within universal existence. SR arbitrarily imposes a dilatable time, contradicting the fundamental perception that time is invoked by physical events rather than being an independent, modifiable entity. While physical changes can be measured, abstract time itself cannot. The SR framework, therefore, introduces an inconsistency by treating time as a physically modifiable quantity.

Enlargement of the Time Scale to Justify Time Dilation

SR artificially enlarges the time scale to accommodate time dilation, yet a standard clock is not designed to reflect such an expansion. This raises the question of whether time dilation is a real effect or simply an imposed reinterpretation of clock errors.

Time Dilation as a Violation of Measurement Standards

Time dilation conflicts with established timekeeping standards set by measurement authorities. Since proper time is defined based on these standards, any modification of the time scale to accommodate relativistic effects becomes an inconsistent reinterpretation rather than an empirical necessity.

Piezoelectric Crystal Oscillator Experiments Reveal Force-Induced Errors

Experiments with piezoelectric crystal oscillators show that external forces can cause deformation in oscillations, leading to errors in timekeeping. SR, however, presents this error as genuine time dilation, ignoring the mechanical distortions affecting clock operation.

Phase Shift in Oscillator Frequency Misinterpreted as Time Dilation

A phase shift in oscillator frequency results in an error in the wavelength of clock oscillations, leading to deviations in measured time. Instead of recognizing this as a mechanical or electromagnetic effect, SR inconsistently classifies it as time dilation.

External Energy Loss Induces Infinitesimal Time Distortion

External influences, such as radiation or thermal effects, motion and gravitational potential cause an infinitesimal loss of wave energy, resulting in infinitesimal distortions in time measurement. SR, however, presents this phenomenon as a fundamental dilation (enlargement) of time rather than an external perturbation.

Proper Time Cannot Accommodate Dilated Time

The time scale designed for proper time measurement cannot logically accommodate dilated time. Yet, SR interprets time dilation as a real effect rather than an observational or instrumental discrepancy.

Entropy Suggests a Constant Change in Time, Contradicting Time Dilation

The principle of entropy suggests that the progression of time is uniform in any closed system. SR, however, introduces variations in time scales that contradict this fundamental concept, leading to inconsistencies in thermodynamic interpretations of time.

Mathematical Inconsistency in Modifying Abstract Time with Physical Forces

Time, as a mathematical abstraction, should not be subject to physical influences. Yet, SR modifies proper time as a function of velocity-dependent physical forces. In mathematics, abstract quantities should not be altered by external forces, making this a fundamentally inconsistent operation.

Limitations of Lorentz Transformations in Accounting for Acceleration and Material Stiffness

Relativistic Lorentz transformations do not inherently incorporate acceleration and material stiffness in their formulation. This presents a significant limitation, as velocity is not a fundamental quantity but rather a derivative of acceleration. Any relativistic transformation based solely on velocity inherently neglects the cumulative effects of acceleration across different reference frames. Consequently, this omission leads to an incomplete representation of physical reality, especially in scenarios where continuous acceleration and material properties play a crucial role in dynamics.

Conclusion

This list represents just a fraction of the inconsistencies in the relativistic concept of time. A thorough examination of SR’s time dilation framework reveals that many of its assumptions rely on arbitrary modifications of measurement standards rather than empirical necessity. Addressing these inconsistencies is crucial for refining our understanding of time and its role in physical theories.

Yes I did. Special relativity was established in 1907 without taking into account the observation that electrons were confirmed as increasing their measurable mass from the analysis by all leading experimentalists of the time of the data collected by Kaufmann, recollected by these other experimentalists in bubble chambers of free moving electron beams made to move at relativistic velocities on curved trajectories. Historical perspective provided in this paper published in July of 2024:

Article From E=mc2 in normal space to E=m0cIcK in the complex config...

Standard Relativity has no anomalies, because it is itself an anomaly. It is based on the wrong kind of transformations (Lorentz), which completely discredits it. See Preprint Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory

Special relativity considered purely as an abstract geometry has no anomalies or inconsistencies.

• Special relativity considered as the final inertial physics of perfectly-flat spacetime has no anomalies or inconsistencies, provided that we do not attempt to model acceleration of gravitation.

And then it's a dead end. Special relativity is not extensible. It is derived for flat empty spacetime and only applies to flat empty spacetime. it does not apply to dirty, real-life, spacetime-bending matter that slows (refractive index) and drags (Fizeau) light.

To apply the principle of relativity to the properties of realistic matter whose presence and motion screws up SR's perfect undisturbed absolute lightbeam gometry, we can't use Minkowski spacetime or Einstein's flat-spacetime proofs, we have to start over, perhaps with Hertzian relativity or an acoustic metric and analogue gravity.

Special relativity is an example of what Feynman described as "a perfect thing". And you cannot extend, adapt or retrofit anything to a perfect thing. It's already complete, and has no "hooks" by which it can connect to other systems, you have to start over and find a different perfect thing.

----

Einstein's unfinished attempt at a general theory of relativity, which never worked and cannot ever work as consistent geometry, tries to extend SR by adding the general principle of relativity (GPoR).

Snag is, the GPoR is geometrically irreconcilable with SR's basic equations. The SR Doppler equations let us prove geometrically that if we use wavelengths of light to map out spacetime, that the path of an accelerated body, described by the Doppler-shifted wavelengths of its light, marks a curved path through flat spacetime (Moeller).

• SR proves that no accelerated body can ever warp lightbeam geometry.

... But general relativity relativises the warpage that an accelerated spaceship sees in its surrounding lightbeam geometry due to the relative acceleration of background matter, and requires that the same effects apply in the same way to any other relatively-accelerated matter.

• GPoR proves that every accelerated body must always warp lightbeam geometry.

So SR and the GPoR, which let us prove opposite physical results, cannot coexist in the same physical universe. If SR is correct in our universe, general relativity must be wrong, and if the GPoR is correct in our universe, then SR must be wrong.

====

Einstein's attempted general theory (1916), which attempts to support both SR and the GPoR, is wrong either way. GR1916 is junk theory: it's based on founding principles that are mutually contradictory, and that cannot be satisfied in a single theory, or a single logical universe.

With most theories, we model a universe in which the theory is right, and then test it by testing how similar this hypothetical universe is to our real one.

WIth GR1916 we can't get this far, because there is no logical hypothetical universe in which the theory is correct. It self-invalidates: if we presume that one part of GR1916 is right, then we can prove that the other part must be wrong. It is not just a failure as a theory of physics, it is illegal as theory.

Today is A. Einstein's birthday. The sooner the fallacy of the theory of relativity is recognized, the better it will be for this remarkable scientist. Let's not forget that he received the Nobel Prize NOT FOR the theory of relativity (in this case, the Nobel Committee showed amazing foresight).

It would have been difficult for Einstein to receive a Nobel Prize for special relativity given that he himself argued that there was no predictive difference at all between Lorentz aether theory performed properly, and special relativity. The reason why some people thought that you could tell the difference between LET and SR (said Einstein) was because LET's philosophical "baggage" encouraged people to apply it wrongly.

His own implementation of the Lorentzian relationships merely had less baggage, and therefore less to go wrong. It was a more efficient way of making exactly the same predictions

Last time I looked at the major journal acceptance criteria (two or three decades ago!) some had a specific criterion that a paper could not be published if it merely re-expressed an existing theory's predictions, dressed up differently. A new theory that was merely philosophically different to an existing theory but made no new predictions, was not eligible for consideration. If that criterion had been used by Annalen in 1905, Einstein's special theory could have been categorised as insufficiently novel to warrant publication.

The E=mc^2 paper did make an important new prediction, worthy of publication. However the 1990s journal rules also had a clause rejecting papers that were supplementary to a previous paper by the same author (presumably to deter authors from "salami-slicing"). So if THAT rule had been in operation at Annalen , the E=mc^2 paper would have been liable for rejection, too. Although maybe Einstein could have gotten around this by presenting E=mc^2 not as a result of his own paper but a result of Lorentz's earlier 1904 paper, and also of all other theories equivalent to Lorentz', and using Lorentzian electrodynamics. Worst-case scenario, he could even have presented it as an exact result of C19th Newtonian theory.