Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity”

Leus, Vladimir A.

doi:10.4236/jamp.2018.64079

Cited by 5 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, the displacement of a field in the laboratory space with a velocity v has a non-wave nature; rather, it is akin to the motion of a rigid body for the non-relativistic case [2] and for the relativistic one [3] as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relativistic Paradox of a Uniformly Charged Sphere Moving with Constant Velocity

Leus¹

2020

JMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A magneto-electric field appearing in a laboratory due to moving charges has unusual properties. In particular, such a field of kinematical origin does not obey the wave equation with a non-relativistic velocity instead of light speed; so, its movement resembles that of a rigid body. In this paper the field of a uniformly charged sphere moving at constant velocity is considered. Relativistic axiom, implicitly used in the derivation of formulas describing a kinematic deformation for the proper spherical field from the point of view of a fixed observer, is revealed. A discrepancy was found between the generally accepted idea of the configuration of a deformed field and its real geometry. It is shown that the correct interpretation of known formulas leads to a logical contradiction, which cannot be eliminated within the framework of the theory of relativity. A scheme of a decisive experiment is proposed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relativistic Paradox of a Uniformly Charged Sphere Moving with Constant Velocity

Leus¹

2020

JMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The recent critical paper [1] by V. A. Leus (Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics) has not addressed the two key arguments I have adduced in [2] The two key arguments I adduced in [2] are: 1) Einstein defined time by means of his clocks. However clocks do not define time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The paper [1] proceeds without any reference to these issues and essentially compares the consequences I drew from (a) and (b) above with the conclusions Einstein drew from his theory. Figure 1 from [2] was reproduced in [1], along with its caption, which I reproduce here for convenience. In relation to this Figure 1, paper [1] purports quotation from [2]:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity’”

Crothers¹

2018

JAMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been critically argued by V. A. Leus (Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Novosibirsk, Russia) that in my proof that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is logically inconsistent and therefore false, I violated the basic tenets of Special Relativity and foisted an alternative theory upon Einstein's. A careful study of the critical analysis reveals however a failure to address the key arguments I adduced to prove Special Relativity logically inconsistent, and a concomitant invocation of Einstein's theory to try to argue that my analysis is incorrect because it does not concur with Einstein. There is therefore no proof advanced of any alleged error in my analysis. In my paper I did not introduce an alternative theory. The aforementioned critical paper affords opportunity in rebuttal to amplify the invalidity of A. Einstein's tacit assumption, in constructing the Special Theory of Relativity, that systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers consistent with Lorentz Transformation can be mathematically constructed. Since such systems of observers have in fact no mathematical existence the Special Theory of Relativity is logically inconsistent. It is therefore invalid. The consequences for physics, astronomy, and cosmology, are significant.

show abstract

“…[4] [5][6] [7]. Two Russian engineers, N. Zaev and V. Dokuchaev, opened this new page in the electromagnetic doctrine half a century ago due to an experiment with a rotating electromagnet.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Electric and Magnetic Fields Move?

Leus¹

2020

JMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In nature, there are two fundamentally different types of motion of the electric and magnetic fields: dynamic and kinematic. A typical manifestation of the first type of motion takes place in a plane harmonic EM-wave. For already more than a century the question about the ratio of the phases of the electric and magnetic fields, oscillating in such a wave, remains open. From time to time in this regard, fierce disputes arise. The point is that far from any phase difference turns out to be compatible with the full system of Maxwellian equations. Maxwell's classical theory as applied to such a wave leads to the conclusion that the electric and magnetic vectors in it oscillate harmoniously with zero phase shift. In the framework of this theory, a rigorous mathematical proof is given.

show abstract

Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity”

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Relativistic Paradox of a Uniformly Charged Sphere Moving with Constant Velocity

Relativistic Paradox of a Uniformly Charged Sphere Moving with Constant Velocity

Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity’”

How Do Electric and Magnetic Fields Move?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About