Kinematics of balls and light versus the theory of special relativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of the emission, propagation, and reflection of balls leads to the mechanical ballistic law, which applies to both balls with and without mass. A natural extension of the ballistic law is to encompass massless entities such as light. According to the ballistic law, a ball or light emitted by a source inherits the velocity of the source in the absolute frame. The phenomenon described by the ballistic law works in the absolute frame which acts as the background of inertial frames and governs the kinematics of balls and light in each inertial frame. It explains why the light emitted, propagated, and reflected speed is the universal constant <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> </mml:math> in any inertial frame when the sources and mirrors are at rest, why the laws of physics have the same form in any inertial frame, and why no experiment in such a frame can prove its motion. By understanding the kinematics of light, we can understand the multiple issues rooted in Lorentz’s transformation and Einstein’s special relativity. For example, the theory of special relativity misapplies the symmetry observed in some phenomena to two inertial frames. Thus, it duplicates a physical phenomenon from one inertial frame considered stationary to another. The Lorentz transformation imposes the speed of light <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> </mml:math> in the moving and opposite directions of the inertial frame. Simultaneously, it varies in any other direction converging to infinite. The time contraction in the moving direction of the inertial frame is different from the time dilation in the opposite direction, and both times are different from those in any other direction. Thus, each direction requires a ruler and time synchronization. Lorentz’s transformation has no length contractions to support this fundamental concept of special relativity. These unacceptable conclusions prove that the theory of special relativity is self-negating.
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".