Empirical falsification of Einstein’s special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR) by an experiment that compares three frames of reference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Einstein defined time as the length of the light path divided by the speed of light. According to this definition, time can only change if either the length of the light path or the speed of light changes. Einstein replaced this objective mathematical truth with his idea that not only is the speed of light constant but also the length of the light path, so Einstein was able to define a constant proper time t 0 in all frames of reference. However, treating distances as constant contradicts the physical definition of motion. Therefore, Einstein’s relativity not only violates mathematical and physical rules but also violates logical rules when it claims that the reason why clocks measure different times is that all clocks measure the same time t 0 . Einstein’s physical half-truth, which makes a false statement about the lengths of light paths, which cannot be constant, leads to contradictions with reality, which Einstein compensated for by mathematical corrections. This inevitably led to a mathematical pseudoreality that is described by theoretical physics according to Einstein’s idea. However, Einstein’s principle of relativity cannot be mathematically manipulated. If we compare at least three reference frames, we obtain contradictory results for the kinematic and gravitational time dilation. In this case, e.g., the paradox arises that an atomic clock must be able to count forward and backward at the same time. Comparing only two frames of reference, the proper time t 0 can be arbitrarily assigned to each of the two frames of reference without contradictions occurring. However, if an experimental setup is always chosen in such a way that at most two frames of reference are compared, and so Einstein’s relativity cannot be falsified, a systematic error is applied, and the experiment is scientifically worthless as far as the confirmation of Einstein’s relativistic SR and GR is concerned.
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".