The four basic errors of special theory of relativity and the solution offered by extended Galilean relativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is the special theory of relativity (STR) a “simple” or “tricky” theory? They who think that it is a simple theory say (i) that its postulates are simple, that Nature is such, (ii) that the mathematics of STR is perfect, and (iii) that experiments support it. I consider its two postulates to be very true, whereas the mathematics of the STR has a shortcoming, and, as for the experiments, the question must be posed: which theory do they support best? The problem for STR lies in the transition from its postulates to its basic equations, i.e., Lorentz transformation and the velocity addition formula. The passage from the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light to the basic equations of the STR is affected by four fundamental errors—three physical and one mathematical. Continuous attempts to reconcile these latent mistakes have made STR increasingly tricky. As a result, it is in a similar situation to Ptolemy's geocentric model after “improvements” thereto by Tycho Brahe. However, the “Copernican solution” for relative motion—offered by extended Galilean relativity—is very simple and effective.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".