Mass-velocity Formula and Mass-energy Relation Cannot Be Derived Based on Lorentz Velocity Transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most important achievement of the Einstein's special relativity was to derive the mass-velocity formula and the famous mass-energy relation from the Lorentz velocity transformation formula. Based on the mass-velocity formula, the dynamics of special relativity was established. In this paper, six derivation methods of the mass-velocity formula in special relativity are re-analyzed, including the elastic collision and the inelastic collision of two particles, the particle splitting processes, and the force moment balance methods based on the Lorentz velocity transformation formula, as well as the method to consider the symmetry principle without using the Lorentz transformation formula. It is pointed out that all of them have serious problems so that they cannot hold actually. Besides, it is pointed out that the method of Hamiltonian action to derive the mass-velocity has nothing to do with the Lorentz velocity transformation and does not belong to the category of special relativity. Therefore, the conclusion of this paper is that it is impossible to derive the mass-velocity formula and the mass-energy relation based on the Lorentz velocity transformation formula. The mass-velocity formula can only be considered as an empirical formula which cannot be derived in theory and have nothing to do with special relativity. If the mass-velocity formula and the mass-energy relationship are correct, it just means that Einstein's special relativity is not true.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".