Einstein’s special relativity violates the constancy of the velocity <i>c</i> of light under one-way conditions and thus contradicts the behavior of electromagnetic radiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On Earth, we always measure the constant velocity c of electromagnetic radiation. Einstein assumed the velocity c of light to be constant in all inertial frames and developed his theory of special relativity by considering a light beam that moves back and forth, whereby he derived transformations between the coordinates of two reference frames: A moving reference frame represented by the coordinate system k and the coordinate system k that is at rest with respect to k . However, by applying Einstein’s theory of relativity, with its postulates of relativistic time dilation and length contraction, to electromagnetic radiation that moves only in one direction, either in the direction of or in the opposite direction to a moving inertial frame, it is demonstrated that the constancy of the velocity c of light is not compatible with Einstein’s theory of special relativity. It becomes obvious that Einstein’s relativistic physics must be an unrealistic theory, and consequently, we need an alternative, nonrelativistic, explanation of the constancy of the velocity c of electromagnetic radiation measured on Earth, and for the special and general “relativistic” phenomena.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".