sapere aude: page three

Critics' arguments: The mathematics of Special Relativity (SR)

In contrast to earlier versions of this page, links are restricted to criticism of the mathematics of SR. The purpose is to further reflection on a topic where mathematical bullying and brainswashing have discouraged us from trusting common sense - an intellectual capacity as crucial in mathematics as elsewhere. Critiques that focus strictly on the mathematical argument are, unfortunately the exception. The tendency is to confuse purely mathematical elements (coordinate systems, moving points, displacements, radii, position vectors, spherical surfaces) with physical entities (inertial frames, light signals, light paths, spherical propagation): this impedes, if not prevents, comprehension. I do not list arguments about trains, spaceships, or mirrors: these cannot be used to explain the transformation of systems of coordinates in relative motion. See also my page 2.

Critiques of the LT

Go to page 2 for my notes on this topic.

(Comment: B. claims to reveal Einstein's mistake by a contradiction that arises in a numerical example. But the mistake is B.'s own: he ignores the definition of the symbols and that in his example, therefore, v=c. Talk of math rules is useless here: the false steps, in 1905 and elsewhere in SR, are found only by attention to the geometry.)

See also Smid, Dr. Thomas: Regarding the 'Light Sphere' Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation.
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lorentz2.htm

(Comment: Included here because of the perverse claim of a contradiction between quantities before and after the transformation, namely c-v or c+v, before, and c, after. The change from the one sytem of measurement to the other is, of course, the sole purpose of the exercise, namely to achieve the "PIVL"!)

See also my discussion in page 2

Bryant, Steven: Relativity Book Analysis: Revealing Einstein's Mistake.
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/mathAppendix1Mistake.htm

(Comment: As in his analysis of the 1905 paper, B. claims to reveal the mistake by an example. Once again, the mistake is B.'s own. He would have it that we may ignore that, by explicit definition, the expressions in brackets equal zero, and that therefore a contradiction arises if we assume them to be non-zero. In view of the bombast, does one laugh or cry?)

(PDF) Vukelja, Aleksandar: "Mathematical Invalidity of the Lorentz Transformation and Relativity".
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/vukelja1.pdf

(Comment: V. imputes to Einstein lack of math skills: the opposite is the case - we see Einstein here having achieved mastery as a fixer of maths problems, by the exploitation of tricks.)

Arteha, Dr. Sergey N.: The Lorentz Transformations
(Ch. 1.4 of his book Criticism of the Foundations of the Relativity Theory).
http://www.antidogma.ru/english/node12.html

Lange, Erik J.: Proof of the falsity of the Special Theory of Relativity.
http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html