Logical Analysis of Special Relativity: Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
Imported from text file |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox paper | {{Infobox paper | ||
| title = Logical Analysis of Special Relativity | | title = Logical Analysis of Special Relativity | ||
| author = [[John E | | author = [[John E Chappell]] | ||
| keywords = [[Special Relativity]] | | keywords = [[Special Relativity]] | ||
| published = 1998 | | published = 1998 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
Special relativity (SR) is a construct of the subcultur. of physics, not a certain reflection of reality. It is inferior to various other theories that explain the same evidence because It is based on Invalid logic: its two postulates contradict each other, and each commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. The simultaneity thought experillent 15 totl:l1ly invalidated by violating the law of noncontradiction; suggestions are made on how to reinterpret it rationally in terms of aether theory.[[Category:Scientific Paper]] | Special relativity (SR) is a construct of the subcultur. of physics, not a certain reflection of reality. It is inferior to various other theories that explain the same evidence because It is based on Invalid logic: its two postulates contradict each other, and each commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. The simultaneity thought experillent 15 totl:l1ly invalidated by violating the law of noncontradiction; suggestions are made on how to reinterpret it rationally in terms of aether theory. | ||
[[Category:Scientific Paper|logical analysis special relativity]] | |||
[[Category:Relativity]] | [[Category:Relativity]] | ||
Revision as of 12:38, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Logical Analysis of Special Relativity |
| Author(s) | John E Chappell |
| Keywords | Special Relativity |
| Published | 1998 |
| Journal | None |
Abstract
Special relativity (SR) is a construct of the subcultur. of physics, not a certain reflection of reality. It is inferior to various other theories that explain the same evidence because It is based on Invalid logic: its two postulates contradict each other, and each commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. The simultaneity thought experillent 15 totl:l1ly invalidated by violating the law of noncontradiction; suggestions are made on how to reinterpret it rationally in terms of aether theory.