Relativity's Length Measurement Inconsistency - Revision history

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-02T02:53:43Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:53, 1 January 2017
Line 18:		Line 18:
	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|relativity 's length measurement inconsistency]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|relativity 's length measurement inconsistency]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity\|relativity 's length measurement inconsistency]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T18:00:47Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:00, 1 January 2017
Line 16:		Line 16:
	1=0? One must feel inconceivable after he found that he is so led by one of the most revered mathematical piece in human history. To expose what is found as an error is to confront, no pleasure but only shock can be found when one feels to be compelled to slip into such a stand. This author wish so much that this 1=0 is a result of his mistaken calculation, but not something led by relativity. However, even setting this inconceivable result aside, calculation via different route shows that zero speed is found to be the only physical state in which special relativity can claim validity for itself; and the equations generated by special relativity can verify just that. It can be found, as demonstrated in the case study presented in this paper, that relativity dismantles the constancy of speed of light, and that relativity ?enables? material points of a moving rod to complete extraordinary distance without time consumption in the process of ?length contraction?. It is well known that constancy of speed of light is the absolute foundation for this theory to be constructed. If light cannot maintain its constancy on speed, it must be of interest to know what is left to support the validity of this theory. While relativity has equations to forbid the appearance of speed that exceeds the speed of light in nature, the same equations either pushes some speed to exceeding such a speed limit or imposes c/2 as another speed limit. Shouldn't we feel irresistible to ask: Why the key points have been so well camouflaged in the derivation of this theory that it can escape the fine-combing done by so many scientists for more than a century? This author believes it is time for us to answer this question. In presenting this review, this author never ceases to wish some people would come forward to help this author realizing how mistakenly this author has been but relativity's integrity is left unchallengeable. Immeasurable thanks to the people who would spend time to examine this paper, or even to correct this author if he would like to do so, are hereby given in advance.		1=0? One must feel inconceivable after he found that he is so led by one of the most revered mathematical piece in human history. To expose what is found as an error is to confront, no pleasure but only shock can be found when one feels to be compelled to slip into such a stand. This author wish so much that this 1=0 is a result of his mistaken calculation, but not something led by relativity. However, even setting this inconceivable result aside, calculation via different route shows that zero speed is found to be the only physical state in which special relativity can claim validity for itself; and the equations generated by special relativity can verify just that. It can be found, as demonstrated in the case study presented in this paper, that relativity dismantles the constancy of speed of light, and that relativity ?enables? material points of a moving rod to complete extraordinary distance without time consumption in the process of ?length contraction?. It is well known that constancy of speed of light is the absolute foundation for this theory to be constructed. If light cannot maintain its constancy on speed, it must be of interest to know what is left to support the validity of this theory. While relativity has equations to forbid the appearance of speed that exceeds the speed of light in nature, the same equations either pushes some speed to exceeding such a speed limit or imposes c/2 as another speed limit. Shouldn't we feel irresistible to ask: Why the key points have been so well camouflaged in the derivation of this theory that it can escape the fine-combing done by so many scientists for more than a century? This author believes it is time for us to answer this question. In presenting this review, this author never ceases to wish some people would come forward to help this author realizing how mistakenly this author has been but relativity's integrity is left unchallengeable. Immeasurable thanks to the people who would spend time to examine this paper, or even to correct this author if he would like to do so, are hereby given in advance.

	[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|relativity 's length measurement inconsistency]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T05:03:06Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = Relativity\'s Length Measurement Inconsistency
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5196.pdf Link to paper]
| author = [[Cameron Y Rebigsol]]
| published = 2009
| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]]
| volume = [[7]]
| num_pages = 7
| pages = 421-427
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5196.pdf here]

==Abstract==

1=0? One must feel inconceivable after he found that he is so led by one of the most revered mathematical piece in human history. To expose what is found as an error is to confront, no pleasure but only shock can be found when one feels to be compelled to slip into such a stand. This author wish so much that this 1=0 is a result of his mistaken calculation, but not something led by relativity. However, even setting this inconceivable result aside, calculation via different route shows that zero speed is found to be the only physical state in which special relativity can claim validity for itself; and the equations generated by special relativity can verify just that. It can be found, as demonstrated in the case study presented in this paper, that relativity dismantles the constancy of speed of light, and that relativity ?enables? material points of a moving rod to complete extraordinary distance without time consumption in the process of ?length contraction?. It is well known that constancy of speed of light is the absolute foundation for this theory to be constructed. If light cannot maintain its constancy on speed, it must be of interest to know what is left to support the validity of this theory. While relativity has equations to forbid the appearance of speed that exceeds the speed of light in nature, the same equations either pushes some speed to exceeding such a speed limit or imposes c/2 as another speed limit. Shouldn't we feel irresistible to ask: Why the key points have been so well camouflaged in the derivation of this theory that it can escape the fine-combing done by so many scientists for more than a century? This author believes it is time for us to answer this question. In presenting this review, this author never ceases to wish some people would come forward to help this author realizing how mistakenly this author has been but relativity's integrity is left unchallengeable. Immeasurable thanks to the people who would spend time to examine this paper, or even to correct this author if he would like to do so, are hereby given in advance.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Relativity]]