A Complete List of Relativity's Self-Refutation
―In Terms of Common Sense, Mathematics, and Physical Evidence
This website contributes totally three articles in one series to reveal the unscientific nature of the special relativity (and then naturally the general relativity).
Almost to any single claim or conclusion relativity presents, it must also enable the appearance of another argument with equation from this “theory” to have such a claim or conclusion completely destructed.
Unbelievably, v=0 and c=0 are the two values that relativity must lead itself to have with its own calculation, where v is the moving speed of a frame in concern, and c is the speed of light. With these two values inevitably ending up with zero, relativity must have all its credit removed as a science theory that it has enjoyed for more than a century. What sense does it make with E=mc2 if c=0? Awards of a total sum of $100,000 is posted with this paper of 6 pages. Details for the awards are found at the bottom of this page.
- Theorem of speed addition concluded by relativity must force relativity to lead itself to have v=0/0
- The same theorem must also lead the claim that “moving clock runs slower” to become “moving clock runs faster”. The idea of time dilation in relativity’s fantasy and frequency shift in the real world cannot tolerate each other.
- Subsequently, relativity ends up to have a claim that “moving length appears longer”, opposing its famous claim that “moving length appears shorter”.
- The “Ives-Stilwell” experiment and the equations correspondingly summarized turn out to be some physical evidence that only serves to reject relativity instead of supporting.
- The explanation of stellar aberration had been misled ever since the 18th century, more than a century before the debut of relativity. According to this older version of explanation, speed of light must have the value of (c2+v2)0.5 > c, where v is the orbital speed of the earth. Unfortunately, relativity fails to detect this discrepancy and thus leads to its own failure with also other "evidence".
- To return the natural speed of c to the light in the explanation of stellar aberration, we must accept that the tilting angle β of the telescope in such observation is to be determined by sin β =v/c other than tan β =v/c.
- With relativity's explanation on frequency shift, the Ives-Stilwell experiment and the subsequent Ives-Stilwell equations must force relativity to end up with v=0 for the moving light source under investigation. Only based on an assumption of the existence of a medium for the light propagation and calculated according to classic physics guidelines can the Ives-Stilwell equations be theoretically confirmed. Following this confirmation is the confirmation of the Lorentz factor.
- The Lorentz factor and the existence of a medium for light propagation are evidencing each other, both from the point of view of theory and physical practice.
- The spatial dimension and temporal dimension in the universe are absolute and independent of each other. This conclusion are not only proven by common sense following Galilean-Newtonian physics, but also "proven" by equations found in relativity.
- In the study of physics, there is no "classic" treatment, nor "relativistic" treatment; there is always only correct treatment or incorrect treatment.
What Is Science, and What Is Truth?
Possibly, Einstein's extraordinarily high IQ is not in the sense of having revealed to human beings any genuine truth, but in the sense of his capability leading people to have built a stubborn superstition on what he said being unchallengeable truth. After his success of more than one century, should we have come to a time to decline that we all are low IQ fools? Or should we continue to accept to be fooled and to fool others as well?
Our $100,000 awards are here to ask for proper decision making from the science world.
Details for the awards of $100,000 (click the dollar sign) for the successful refutation of the first paper listed above, Relativity Is Self-defeated (1 of 3)―in Terms of Mathematics (6 pages). Yes, we are fully aware of that, to people pursuing truth in science, monetary award has never been their original motivation. Therefore, anyone who intends to refute Rebigsol's paper but also decline the award is equally welcome to submit his paper. Let's all give the truth a chance it deserves!!!