Einstein's relativity falsified: I. The factor <i>γ</i> can take values larger than √2, which requires a speed of light < <i>c</i> in moving inertial frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering that an Einstein clock can travel at a speed no greater than c, from the principle of relativity, a kinematic time dilation factor can be derived whose value cannot be greater than 2 . In fact, however, the kinematic time dilation factor γ can approach an infinite value. This discrepancy demonstrates that the derivation of the kinematic time dilation factor γ in Einstein's special relativity (SR) cannot be physically justified by the principle of relativity, and that it is not physically possible that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference. The mathematical method of Einstein's SR, which I refer to as the “mathematical method of relativity,” allows the calculation of constant physical values from different quantities of any physical unit and is thus scientifically worthless. Accordingly, it is not surprising that it is possible to predict so-called general relativistic phenomena, e.g., the phenomena observed at the binary pulsar PSR B1913 + 16, just by applying Kepler's second law and simple quantum physical considerations [R. G. Ziefle, Phys. Essays 33, 99 (2020)]. A careful interpretation of interferometer experiments on Earth clearly shows that there is in fact no need for artificial time acceleration by length contraction. However, today's physicists seem to be lost in mathematics. The aim of this paper is to contribute to a physical theory of relativity that does not require mathematical tricks, such as time acceleration (length contraction), space-time curvature, and other mathematical tricks that follow from Einstein's mathematical methods and uphold the illusion that the belief in a constant speed of light c in any frame of reference is physically justified.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".