Ziaedin Shafiei I agree with your concerns expressed in the discussion introduction. It is also interesting that the Nobel Prize committee has become the steering committee for accepted science.

I think physics and cosmology have a big problem at present because we are about to fundamentally change our understanding of the evolution of the universe and the fundamental nature of matter.

How will such change come about? In the case of cosmology, it will be the observations from the James Webb Space Telescope which demonstrate that the universe is much older than 13.8 billion years.

In the case of the fundamental nature of matter, it will be the recognition that quantum theory and the standard model of particle physics only provide a method of predicting the results of experiments. They do not provide any picture of the fundamental nature of matter, mass and charge.

I think the sequence will be as follows: JWST shows that the Big Bang theory is wrong. This leads to a challenge to all the assumptions of the Big Bang theory. 1. The cause of the CMB 2. The cosmological principle. 3. The assumption that matter formed at the same time.

This must lead to a new approach to matter formation and the nature of the electron proton and neutron will have to be reassessed.

The fundamental thing will be found to be the medium of space and by showing that light is a wave in a medium we will then have to discard the postulates of Special Relativity.

Richard

Dear Preston Guynn

Many thanks for your advice and several uppercuts.

I will respond to your first scientific criticism and invite you to read the linked document in the letter for your second criticism and Feynman’s analysis. Please note that my main criticism of relativity is its regression to metaphysics or experiment free science as Einstein boasted. This is dangerous to science and all of us must be alarmed. The rest is mere details. I hope you have seen my analysis of the imaginary light clock and “Science in the shadow of metaphysics” uploaded to RG.

You are familiar with the Field Equations (FE). We know why c4 is in the denominator of the equation, c4 is just a tiny tweak added arbitrarily to FE to make sure its dimensional analysis is correct. However, on other occasions c is considered just a constant to circumvent another inconsistency.

We also know that Minkowski space-time is another form of Lorentz transformation equations (LTE). In LTE, which was derived prior to special relativity, time is simply t but it is converted to ct in Minkowski diagram. My question is: What is time in relativity? Is it t or ct. Please see the attached diagram from wiki.

P.S. I have asked the question “what is time? t or ct” in RG a while ago. I invite you to read my main comment in that question.

Dear Richard Lewis

I hope your predictions materialise sooner rather than later. However, the current situation could have been prevented if we have not dug a very big hole for ourselves by generating countless new theories without due experiment. For example, we still cannot measure one-way speed of light in vacuum but firmly believe it is constant and based on this belief have constructed some other theories. That is what I meant by "the power and benefit of metaphysics" in the letter.

I simply could ask from those who think special relativity is proven so many times this simple question: have you measured one-way c in VACUUM. But, as I know the answer I usually do not ask.

One can also claim that Newton's law of universal gravitation has been proven so many times but it was rejected by scientists when it failed just once. Scientists remember this for Newton but forget it for Einstein and keep tweaking.

Your concerns are valid,considering thateven Nobel Laureattes/Winners and evenjudges are biased on non conformist scientist,I hope you know what im referring to,but then again as you have mentioned in one of your examples as 'Time', Ithink it is also time that will prove your concerns as valid as your point of view or Fact.may I suggest that you continue with your endeavour,using applicable measurementsof science ,acceptable even to non conformist thinking,Godspeed

@

Dear Preston Guynn

In my last comment I wrote "One can also claim that Newton's law of universal gravitation has been proven so many times but it was rejected by scientists when it failed just once. Scientists remember this for Newton but forget it for Einstein and keep tweaking."

It seems you agree with me to a degree as your first sentence in your paper reads "Einstein's theory of special relativity was incomplete".

Unfortunately I do not see anything in your paper but another tweaking to save special relativity.

I invite you, as an expert in special relativity, who accepts time dilation and length contraction, to take up my challenge in the following RG link. I will additionally be indebted to you for teaching me the validity of relativity. It is fine if you ask for the help of those five scientists in RG whom you think know relativity and in fact anyone you like.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_physicist_help_a_charity_with_1000_by_defending_special_relativity?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions&_sg=7gj2yg28ksPoGJWD6XwId6ifS7VDBXt3bbCJ9SmWH8ZAZTmB8j1rnNCSD1h_RKstbU8LcoNXtuV8KhaA

Dear Preston Guynn

I hope you always be right and successful. I did not claim to be a physicists but somebody who tries to learn. If, as you claim, I am not a good student so be it, there is no shame in trying. Now back to science.

In the challenge I have claimed that length contraction and time dilation are based on wrong analysis of Michelson and Morley experiment as a desperate attempt to revive the existence of aether. Therefore, Lorentz Transformation equations are not supported by M&M experiment. It is also nothing to do with relativity as the experiment carried out in a room and in a single frame (in one inertial frame of reference). Einstein accepted LTE and rejected aether. It means that special relativity is wrong multiple of times.

If you do not agree, please practice what you preach and take up the challenge. Nothing is holding you up. By refuting my claim you help a charity too. This challenge is there from Oct. 2019 and should be an evidence for the feeble root of relativity. Here is the link again.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_physicist_help_a_charity_with_1000_by_defending_special_relativity?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions&_sg=7gj2yg28ksPoGJWD6XwId6ifS7VDBXt3bbCJ9SmWH8ZAZTmB8j1rnNCSD1h_RKstbU8LcoNXtuV8KhaA

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei ;

I looked at the link you gave which was Preprint Electromagnetic Force and Special Relativity

In that link I found the statement:

Einstein claimed that “If a unit electric point charge is in motion in an electromagnetic field, the force acting upon it is equal to the electric force which is present at the locality of the charge, and which we ascertain by transformation of the field to a system of co-ordinates at rest relatively to the electrical charge.”

I also get from the above link that you have a disagreement with the above statement. I think the confusion here is about which observer is defining the force. The electromagnetic field as transformed to coordinates at rest relative to the charge is the field needed to predict the force as seen by an observer at rest with the charge (an electric force but no magnetic force because the charge is not moving). Field transformations to other coordinate systems are needed to predict the force as seen by observers moving relative to the charge. This means that different observers (having different motions relative to each other) can see different forces even if all coordinate systems are inertial. This is in contrast to Newtonian mechanics in which the same force is seen in all inertial coordinate systems. Newtonian mechanics is wrong when applied to electromagnetic forces so we need to include things like field energy or field momentum (outside the scope of Newtonian mechanics) to obtain conservation laws. However, I think that your complaint is not that Newtonian mechanics should be used when it isn't, but rather that special relativity is wrong. Special relativity does have limitations (when general relativity becomes an issue) but for its intended applications (i.e., when general relativity is not needed) it has done a great job of producing all of today's modern technology derived from it. In particular, the treatment of electromagnetic forces in the context of special relativity is one of the most thoroughly studied of all topics in physics. If there was a real incompatibility between special relativity and electromagnetism, we would have known about that a long time ago. We would have known about it during the days when special relativity was first introduced and had a lot of opposition, and a lot of people searched very hard to find inconsistencies with the theory. The theory survived attacks by brilliant people searching for problems with the theory, and it will survive attacks by people that perceive it to be wrong because of their own lack of understanding.

Dear L.D. Edmonds

Many thanks for reading the article. Feynman tried to prove that electromagnetic force acting on a charged particle is the same if calculated from the two different frames specified by Einstein. He failed to do so and he admitted it. Therefore, there is no need for exegeses here. He tried to show the two calculations give the same results but no equality was found. Other professors have simply copied Feynman. I have referenced three lecture notes and one book. I would be really grateful if you could do the calculation and prove Einstein right or find one in an article. There is no other way.

Also you are invited to take up my challenge and prove that the foundation of relativity is true. Simply show that length contraction can be derived from M&M experiment.

Dear L.D. Edmonds

Please see the following Sixty Symbol video from 7:26 - 8:35 regarding the understanding of relativity. I am sure you have the same experience.

Relativity Paradox - Sixty Symbols - YouTube

You claim that relativity has been proven many times. I have found at least two cases which do not support your claim. One case which you have kindly looked at is not my finding anyway as it is a failure disclosed by professors in top universities. I have quoted Feynman line by line in my document. It is not thus appropriate to accuse others not understanding relativity and think the problem goes away. The least is expected from you is to correct Feynman's calculations or show where I have misunderstood this glaring case.

Here are Feynman's words

"we see that the magnitudes of the forces are almost identical from the two points of view. In fact

F' = γ F

so for the small velocities we have been considering, the two forces are equal. We can say that for low velocities, at least, we understand that magnetism and electricity are just “two ways of looking at the same thing."

I never claimed that relativity has been proven. It is supported by circumstantial evidence. Enough to make the theory sufficiently main stream so that all of modern technology is compatible with it, and the success of modern technology is itself additional circumstantial evidence. I’m not sure where you found Feynman having a problem. He thoroughly understood special relativity, Maxwells equations, and the mechanics of fields acting on particles so I would be very surprised if he had a problem with these topics, except regarding the idea of self-force on a particle. There are no inconsistencies in theories if the “particle” is a uniformly charged marble, but there is a difficulty when taking the limit as the size of the marble shrinks to zero while keeping the amount of charge fixed. To avoid difficulties, we must give the marble some definite size. Is this the topic you refer to when you say Feynman could not answer the question? If so, I don’t see a problem with relativity, the problem is not knowing a definite size of a particle.

Also, regarding Feynman's words that you listed:

"we see that the magnitudes of the forces are almost identical from the two points of view. In fact

F' = γ F

so for the small velocities we have been considering, the two forces are equal. We can say that for low velocities, at least, we understand that magnetism and electricity are just “two ways of looking at the same thing."

What is your problem with that?

Dear L.D. Edmonds

Is not a problem when Einstein claims the two forces should be equal and they are not?

Is not a problem when Feynman tries to show the two forces are equal and he finds F is not equal to F'? That is why he says the forces are only equal at small velocities.

What does "almost identical" forces mean? Physicists claim that relativity mainly manifest itself at high velocities but as you know γ gets larger with speed. It means the error between the two forces widens as the seed increases. This is Feynman's problem. This is a relativity problem.

Nobody that understands and believes in special relativity has said that observers moving relative to each other will see the same forces (except in the limit of small relative velocity). There is a connection between the forces seen by different observers but this connection is derived from a tensor transformation and is not the same as a numerical equality. It might be said that the force tensor is the same for all and it is only the components defined by different reference frames that are different, so it is possible that you might have come across a vocabulary that sounds something like the claim that different observers see the same forces. But in this context, "the same force" has a rather abstract meaning because it does not mean they are numerically equal. In terms of being numerically equal, they are not. Anyone that understands special relativity knows this.

Dear L.D. Edmonds

Your claim is not consistent with the principle of conservation of momentum and energy in special relativity. Also, Einstein is not in agreement with you. His claim is clear with no exception:

"If a unit electric point charge is in motion in an electromagnetic field,

the force acting upon it is equal to the electric force which is present at the

locality of the charge, and which we ascertain by transformation of the field to a system of co-ordinates at rest relatively to the electrical charge."

Feynman obviously knew γ is almost 1 at low velocities so F = F' for those velocities. He therefore interpreted equal as equal as he said:

"so for the small velocities we have been considering, the two forces are equal."

Any phrase such as "except in the limit of small relative velocity" is thus a later addition after no equality was found. Please reference any such statement besides and before Feynman's justification, if possible.

My claim does not contradict conservation laws. What Einstein said is correct and does not disagree with what I said. But it is clear that you are not going to understand this and I am finished with trying to explain it to you. Goodby.

Dear L.D. Edmonds

Thanks for your discussion with me. My aim is not attacking relativity but its clarification.

For those who think they understand relativity I have a simple challenge since October 2019. Please prove to yourselves that Michelson and Morley experiment validates length contraction as it was claimed to do so by Lorentz. This is all I ask.

The challenge is "Can a physicist help a charity with £1000 by defending special relativity?"

and its link is:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_physicist_help_a_charity_with_1000_by_defending_special_relativity?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions&_sg=9fqbVC5BoM3NnwSVoNaKIShkYVYrAvOXczNBMqIbadOpnh2THwu1Um3H4eVGUHaVWe_URJGZluVqNlCr

yes a good idea

Einstein's 1905 derivation was incomplete. And it was possibly deliberately incomplete, because completion would require a third postulate that would tend to be considered the theory's weak point or flaw.

Einstein starts out with the relativity principle and the (global) constancy of the speed of light in vacuo ... that is, he bases the whole theory on the expected relativistic behaviour of light in regions totally devoid of matter.

Having established his law of the constancy of c in vacuo, he then invokes this law in situations where a region is populated (sometimes arbitrarily-densely populated) with masses.

This is illegal. He takes a behaviour that depends for its derivation on a particular condition being met (absence of matter), and applies it as a "law" in cases where that condition is violated (presence of matter).

So Einstein's theory has a missing step. With just the two existing postulates, SR can be claimed to be a purely metaphysical construct that ony applies in the absence of matter. A null solution with no physical applicability.

In order to turn Einstein's system into legitimate physical theory, we need an additional explicit bridging hypothesis, saying that the "empty space" results are assumed or known to still apply when space is not empty. This required third postulate is equivalent to saying that we know (or choose to assume) that the presence and relative motion of real matter has zero effect on the way that light propagates through a region.

The reason why Einstein didn't explicitly add this third postulate is obvious. If the theory was explicitly based on the idea that light-propagation is unaffected by matter, all a critic would have to do would be to point to the effects of refractive index and the Fizeau effect, and they'd be able to say that postulate 3, and therefore the entire theory, was disproven by expermental data.

Einstein faked his derivation and cleverly hid this dependency, because he knew that an honest presentation of the dependencies of his theory would not have been accepted.

Preprint Einstein's Missing Third Postulate

Ours is, unfortunately, a scientific subject where "faking it" gains big rewards, and honesty is penalised. It's a "fake it 'til you make it" culture, where there are probably entire subfields based on fake math, where bad science is endemic, and it's probably not possible to have a career as an honest scientist. The bad science drives out the good, because it generates impressive-looking results more easily: it's comparable to the problem of the use of performance-enhancing drugs in athletics - Good science often just can't compete in those environments.

Dear L.D. Edmonds

LDE "Nobody that understands and believes in special relativity has said that observers moving relative to each other will see the same forces (except in the limit of small relative velocity)."

This is yet another problem with relativity. You are right if we accept the idea of relativistic mass. This idea is not accepted anymore by the majority of physicists and even is removed from latest versions of textbooks.

What about the dimension of time which I specifically pointed out in my open letter. As an engineer do you think it is T or L?

Dear L.D. Edmonds

For relativistic mass please see Fermilab video:

Is relativistic mass real? - YouTube

Also I have briefly discussed this issue in the start of the attached article with relevant references in the end.

Preprint Special Relativity: The Revival of Metaphysics