Critical attacks and criticisms on Einstein's well-known theory of special relativity have recently accumulated such a large scale that it is appropriate to speak of an impending crisis. The various flaws in this hypothesis, as well as the lifeless condition of the scientific technique it created, have gradually become obvious to an increasing number of experts. It appears that it is time to improve STR and subject it to a remedial revision. What is the best place to start?
The fact that they were truly mathematicians rather than physicists was constantly brought up as a rebuke to writers on STR. The formula of Lorentz's transformations already prevailed in the construction of the theory, and they attempted to "adapt" reality to it. And because the decision had been made, all other options "had been simply killed off, and it had unknowingly barred a road for them." As a result, the deductive "mathematical" methodology won out.
To be honest, positivist philosophical-methodological procedures that absolutize the observer's standpoint and reject the existence of objective features for natural subjects and other phenomena have also been harmful. The circumstance in which each of two observers travelling past one another would fix alternative spatial and time reductions in the other system and therefore be correct could never be evaluated within the framework of a materialistic methodology. Scientists moving to materialism in comparable settings have a problem: what actually happens in these two systems? Instead of a response, they are given a positivist-philosophical "FCC": it looks that there is nothing actually there; there is only one subjective semblance of the phenomenon that is used as the scientific foundation.
As a result of two critical methodological flaws advocated by STR, the current deadlock has emerged. As a result, we must expose a problem in a relativistic scenario to a more rigorous methodological study in order to find the way to the correct solution.
We have already established in the article "Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Phenomena" that the architects of STR have shown scandalous tendentiousness in the examination of certain space-time relativistic effects. They choose relative length reductions and shorter durations as key consequences, while the influence of simultaneity relativity has been overlooked.
Having been pushed into the second plan and presented as being reliant on the first two. As a result, they purposefully did not conclude the value of clock mistiming by basing the last consequence on the thought experiment with Einstein's train, which would have been fairly logical and straightforward. After getting Lorentz's formulas, STR writers employed this experiment qualitatively, and the quantitative ratio was inferred subsequently.
Having been pushed into the second plan and presented as being reliant on the first two. As a result, they purposefully did not conclude the value of clock mistiming by basing the last consequence on the thought experiment with Einstein's train, which would have been fairly logical and straightforward. After getting the formulas for Lorentz's transformations for space and time coordinates, STR writers employed this experiment qualitatively, and the quantitative ratio was determined subsequently.
The effect of simultaneity relativity finds itself in the backyard of STR as a result of this tendentious approach, and the methodological specificity introduced by it has remained understudied. It contained a fatal flaw, which will be demonstrated below. The particular
You must be logged in to post a comment.