Relativity and Cosmology


Special Theory of Relativity: Logical Inconsistencies

Authors: Stephen J. Crothers

When Einstein formulated his Special Theory of Relativity he tacitly assumed that it is possible to construct systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers consistent with the Lorentz Transformation. Such systems of observers are essential to the Special Theory. By mathematically constructing an infinite system of stationary observers and forcing it to comply with the Lorentz Transformation, it follows that the observers cannot be clocksynchronised. Conversely, by mathematically constructing an infinite system of clocksynchronised observers and forcing it to comply with the Lorentz Transformation, it follows that the observers cannot be stationary. Only one element of each of the said sets of observers has the deceptive appearance of satisfying Einstein's assumption. It is this element which Einstein incorrectly allowed to speak for all observers by virtue of his assumption; but clearly not all observers are equivalent. Furthermore, a system consisting of a single observer cannot be clock-synchronised or stationary with respect to anything. Einstein defined time by means of clocks. In so doing he detached time from physical reality because time is perceived and understood by the motion of celestial bodies, which is independent of the hands of a clock.

Comments: 12 Pages. Presented on the 17th of April 2018 at the Ohio Meeting of the American Physical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2018-05-02 10:03:13

Unique-IP document downloads: 1276 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus