The Single Best Argument Against Special Relativity
Year: 2002
Imagine two objects, A and B, in rectilinear motion past one another. Imagine
that B has a nice big ?X? marked on it.
Now applying the equations of Special Relativity, how much time should it take
for A to pass by the spot X marked on B, as measured by a stop watch carried on
board A? Special Relativity requires that this time be calculated using the Lorentz
transformation. And the Lorentz transformation requires that the stop watch
should show a lesser time for this event if it is calculated under the assumption
that A is moving and B is stationary, than it would if the time were calculated
under the assumption that B is moving and A is stationary. Thus the Lorentz
transformation requires the readings on the stop watch to be calculated to be
different, depending on whether A is assumed to be moving or stationary. The
Principle of Relativity, however, which affirms that there is no such thing as absolute
rectilinear motion, requires that there be no way to tell which one of the
two, A or B, is moving. Therefore the Principle of Relativity requires that the
times are calculated to be the same, no matter whether it is assumed that A is
moving and B is stationary, or that B is moving and A is stationary.
But of course it is impossible, both logically and mathematically, for a single
mathematical problem to have both the same and different answers. (Heck, even
my twelve-year-old younger son can grasp this!) So the Theory of Special Relativity
must be logically as well as mathematically flawed, and we, along with
my twelve-year-old, can all see that the Emperor Albert has no clothes on.