A Breakdown in the Special Theory of Relativity Demonstrated Based on an Elucidation of the Relativity of Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the thought experiment in this paper, we consider inertial frames M and A moving at constant velocity relative to each other. First, a light signal is emitted from inertial frame M toward inertial frame A when the time on a clock in inertial frame M is 1 (s). In the scenario of this paper, that light arrives at inertial frame A when time on the clock in A is 2 (s). Next, the situation is reversed, and a light signal is emitted from inertial frame A toward inertial frame M when the time in inertial frame A is 1 (s). That light arrives at inertial frame M when the time in M is 2 (s). According to the special theory of relativity (STR), the two inertial frames are equivalent, and thus it is not surprising that symmetric experiment results are obtained. However, it has already been pointed out that, among the coordinate systems regarded by Einstein as inertial frames, there are “classically stationary frames” where light propagates isotropically, and “classically moving frames” where light propagates anisotropically. If a classically stationary frame is incorporated into a thought experiment, it becomes easier to predict the experiment results. This paper elucidates a system whereby symmetrical experiment results can be obtained, even if the two coordinate systems are not equivalent. If one attempts to explain such experiment results from the standpoint of the STR, it ironically requires the use of logic that is unacceptable under the STR. Thus, this paper explains those experiment results by using logic different from the STR, and demonstrates the breakdown in the STR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".