|
Yet Another
Very Simple Argument Against Special Relativity
by
Ardeshir
Mehta
Tuesday, October 9, 2001
Here is yet another very simple
argument which proves that Special Relativity must be mathematically flawed,
for the Lorentz transformation equations -- which are absolutely essential
for the Special Theory of Relativity -- can give results which contradict
the Special Theory of Relativity itself.
-
Let's say that somewhere out in
deep space, the United Federation of Planets has a fairly large mother-ship
of rest-length D, and clamped to its hull there is a fairly small
run-about of rest-length d -- both ships facing in the same direction.
-
Let's say that when the run-about
is stationary relative to the mother-ship, the mother-ship is exactly ten
times as long as the run-about.
-
Thus when the run-about is stationary
relative to the mother-ship the ratio d/D is exactly 1/10
-- or expressed decimally, 0.1.
-
Now let's say the clamps on the
run-about are released, and the run-about fires its engines, moving away
from the mother-ship in a straight line, and eventually reaching a constant
rectilinear velocity v relative to the mother-ship.
-
According to the Lorentz transformation
equations, the length of the run-about must now be contracted compared
to what it was in 1. above, namely d.
-
The contracted length, d',
must be calculable by the Lorentz transformation formula d' = d/{1/[1-(v2/c2)]0.5}.
-
Of course d' cannot be
greater than or equal to d, but must be less, because (v2/c2)
must be a positive number, and so [1-(v2/c2)]
must
be less than 1, so the square root of [1-(v2/c2)]
must also be less than 1, which means that {1/[1-(v2/c2)]0.5}
must
be greater than 1.
-
Under these conditions, however,
the length D of the mother-ship cannot have changed from what it
was when the mother-ship and run-about were clamped to each other, as was
the case in 1. above.
-
So in 5. and 6. above, the ratio
d'/D
cannot be 1/10 or 0.1, but must be less, because d/D
= 1/10, and d' < d.
-
Let the run-about now turn around,
return to the mother-ship and be clamped back onto its hull. The ratio
between the lengths of the two is once again 1/10.
-
Now let the clamps be released
a second time, but instead of the run-about firing its engines,
let's say the mother-ship fires its engines and it moves
away in a straight line from the run-about, eventually reaching a constant
rectilinear velocity of v relative to the run-about.
-
Under these condition, the length
of the mother ship will now have contracted to D', and according
to the Lorentz transformation formula, D' = D/{1/[1-(v2/c2)]0.5}.
-
And D' cannot be greater
than or equal to D, but must be less, because (v2/c2)
must be a positive number, and so [1-(v2/c2)]
must
be less than 1, so the square root of [1-(v2/c2)]
must also be less than 1, which means that {1/[1-(v2/c2)]0.5}
must
be greater than 1.
-
Under these conditions, however,
the length d of the run-about cannot have changed from what
it was when the mother-ship and run-about were clamped to each other, as
in 9. above (and in 1. above also.)
-
So now in 11. and 12. above, the
ratio d'/D cannot be 1/10 or 0.1, but must be more,
because d/D = 1/10, and D' < D.
-
But, and this is a B
I G "but", according to the Theory of Relativity, there should
be no difference whatsoever between 5. and 6. above on the one hand,
and 11. and 12. above on the other: because the relative velocity between
mother-ship and run-about is v in all these cases!
-
This is contradicted by the fact
that the results of the relative lengths of the mother-ship and run-about
in 8. and 14. above are different from one another.
-
And this in turn proves that results
obtained by using the Lorentz transformation equations -- which are absolutely
essential for the Special Theory of Relativity -- contradict the Special
Theory of Relativity itself … proving that the Special Theory of Relativity
must be mathematically self-contradictory.
P.S.: It should
be noted that it is impossible for the length of the mother-ship to have
contracted in 7. compared to what it was in 1.,nor is it possible
for the length of the run-about to have contracted in 13. compared to what
it was in 9.That's because in both 1, and 7. above, absolutely
nothing
happens
to the mother-ship; nor does anything happen to the run-about in 9. and
13. above. The only thing that happens in 7. above is that the run-about
changes its own relative velocity compared to the mother-ship from
what it was in 1. -- namely zero -- to
v; and the only thing that
happens in 13. above is that the mother-ship changes its
own
relative velocity compared to the run-about from what it was in 1.
-- namely zero -- to v.
Any comments? e-mail
me.
|