An alternative to special relativity: How a flawed experiment and misunderstanding of the fundamental laws of physics diverted physicists from their logical path
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to show how the result of an erroneous experiment and the lack of understanding of the basic laws of Newtonian mechanics and its application diverted the progress of an important branch of theoretical physics from its true path and led to the creation of the theory of relativity (SR). Every year, many new papers regarding this theory are published that show its many contradictions and anomalies. This paper shows why Einstein's theory of relativity is theoretically and fundamentally incorrect and why, despite its problems, the theory gives some empirical predictions. A more logical solution based on Newtonian mechanics and on experiments and observations plus the concept of ether, leading to the same results, is proposed. As an example, mass-energy equivalence E ≅ m c 2 is derived to show that Newtonian mechanics is adequate in the domain of high-speed particles. The derivation in this paper is by a similar technique to what has been previously published by the same author but with a different method of calculation. The paper also shows that SR does not explain, as claimed by Einstein, the null result of the Michelson and Morley experiment, which is the basis for the theory. It explains why the error in the experiment is hidden and difficult to detect. It also gives more information about the three previously published papers by the same author and endeavors to give a more comprehensive explanation as to what went wrong in this branch of theoretical physics.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| 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".