# I Mathematically Proved That Einstein's Relativity Is Wrong

www.maheshkhati.com

38 replies to this topic

### #35 maheshkhati

maheshkhati

Questioning

• Members
• 117 posts

Posted 11 March 2016 - 05:38 AM

I have just re-write my 1st chapter of the paper on relativity on the web site www.maheshkhati.com.

### #36 maheshkhati

maheshkhati

Questioning

• Members
• 117 posts

Posted 21 June 2016 - 04:19 AM

1)When I was in 11th standard, teacher said that Photon is the bundle of energy.

I stood & asked, " what is mean by energy?

Energy is the capacity of doing work. Can we make bundle of any capacity? No, we can not make bundle of any capacity. For example, I have capacity to pick the book. We can not make bundle of that capacity of picking the book.

Now, it is very clear that total energy of photon is the kinetic energy & we can not make bundle kinetic energy. Mean's photon is not the bundle of energy.

Means, photon is not the bundle of energy but some thing else. I proposed photons & all elementary particles are made up of two +ve & -ve charge particles.& total energy of photon is kinetic energy (energy due to momentum), this will create mathematical effect that rest mass of photon is zero (but photon can not be at rest & its mass can not be zero).

(Details is given in paper on web www.maheshkhati.com)

2)In discussion one of my friend says that it is impossible that all elementary particles, photon & dark matter can be created by only two energetic particles.

My answer:- Consider two atoms, carbon & hydrogen this creates many carbohydrates like plastic, petrol, diesel, wax, fiber etc of complely different properties Means, very small similar particles can create lot of other stable structures or particles. This is not impossible.

3) My assumption is space & vacuum are two different things, space is created in the vacuum by fields of group of matter & when one of that matter accelerate in that space it is opposed by space around it this create the effect of inertia & mass. (details is given in paper) For example, for us earth field is the inertial field. So, velocity of light is constant in all direction on earth.

### #37 maheshkhati

maheshkhati

Questioning

• Members
• 117 posts

Posted 28 July 2016 - 04:38 AM

I have just re-write 1,2 & 3rd chapter of  my paper on web site www.maheshkhati.com. Now, this paper proves that SR is mathematically wrong in 1st chapter but 2nd & 3rd chapter give answer to some fundamental questions of physics.

1)      What is dark matter?

2)      Dual nature of particles (Wave & particle)

3)      Why antimatter is not present in world abundantly?

4)      Total energy of photon is kinetic energy, still it is moving of electromagnetic vibration & rest mass or energy of photon is zero & also, it has wave nature? How all this is possible at one time?

5)      How can photon disintegrate into electron & positron pair and electron, positron get combine to form photon?

6)      Why does charge less particles like photons & neutron have more velocity?

7)      Many heavy but unstable particles are forming in LHC at CERN.

Your help to develop this theory again is welcome. Thanks

### #38 maheshkhati

maheshkhati

Questioning

• Members
• 117 posts

Posted 07 July 2018 - 04:11 AM

I have written 3 papers on Vixra
vixra.org/author/mahesh_khati
I think world is very interesting but simple.

### #39 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 25 October 2018 - 02:30 AM

This is incorrect.

Relativity, both Galilean and Einsteinean, state that the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame of reference. They do not state that they are the same in rotating frames of reference.

If the universe were as you describe it, maheshkhati, bodies far from the Earth would not only have velocities greater than c, they would experience a centrifugal pseudoforce away from the Earth. The Moon, for example, which is about $r$=384400000 m from the Earth, so would have a speed of about $\frac{2 \, \pi \, r}{1 \,\mbox{day}} \,\dot=\, 27950 \,\mbox{m/s}$, and would experience a pseudoacceleration of about $\frac{v^2}{r} \,\dot=\, 2 \,\mbox{m/s/s}$. This is greater than its surface gravity, so bodies on the far side of the moon would fly off of it, which we can see is not happening.

There’s a more profound reason why relativity can’t hold for rotating frames of reference. If that were the case, the universe would have a center about which the rest of it rotates – in your example, the Earth.

Another way to understand why your argument is wrong is to consider it on a smaller scale using common sense intuition. A person can easily rotate at about a rate of 0.25 rotations/s. If one were to do this in the center of a 200 m-wide parking lot, the cars at the edge of it would be moving at a speed of about 157 m/s, and experience an outward centrifugal force of about 247 m/s/s, about 25 times the Earth’s surface gravity, much greater than the traction of any car’s tires on pavement can withstand. We know, and can easily show, however, that standing in the middle of a parking lot and turning in pace doesn’t cause cars to be thrown out of the parking lot!
Having clear, simple thoughts does not assure that your thoughts are correct.

Will you pick a side and stick with it please?

You tell this guy that distant stars are not inertial, they are orbiting, so SR cant be applied. His ideas are invalid.

But when confronted with the claim that GPS cannot be using SR, because the satellites, the Earth, the cars on earth are not in inertial frames, you are going to claim that its insignificant, it does not matter.

You say that with GPS, the effects of SR are tiny, but they are very important, because it makes a big difference to the accuracy.   But when it comes to the fact that there are no inertial frames to be found anywhere with the GPS system, well then, the tiny differences are not worth bothering with, now tiny differences are to be ignored.

So are inertial frames important or not? Are Physicists worried about accuracy, or they are not bothered?

You don't know which scientific "fact" to stay married to , do you?

You want it both ways.  Hedge your bets with Relativity, claim that all situations are Relative, even the ones that are not.  Then you cant ever be wrong.

And don't try that crappy excuse about the ECIF.  Or we will have to take a good look at that little loophole you relativists have invented to dodge the issues with SR.