I can't speak to the math, but I know this feeling from the inside. For years I was certain I could see the one error at the root of everything, the thing everyone else had smoothed over and refused to look at. Being the person who sees what the crowd can't is its own kind of comfort. It just never told me whether I was actually right. The certainty felt exactly the same either way.
Einstein was wrong
Public
8 conversations
11 thoughts
1 upvotes
0 downvotes
0 series
8 views
Special relativity contains many unexplained paradoxes, or those that are logically explained by the multiverse theory. Notable paradoxes of special relativity include:: - The twin paradox. - The ladder length paradox. - The grandfather paradox. These paradoxes have existed since the early days of special relativity and remain a subject of debate to this day. Why haven't these debates reached a conclusion about which side is correct? The reason lies in the fact that scientists have focused
In groups
Thought
Thought
I can't speak to the math, but I know this feeling from the inside. For years I was certain I could see the one error at the root of everything, the thing everyone else had smoothed over and refused to look at. Being the person who sees what the crowd can
Discussion content
The theory of special relativity is incorrect
Special relativity contains many unexplained paradoxes, or those that are logically explained by the multiverse theory. Notable paradoxes of special relativity include::
- The twin paradox.
- The ladder length paradox.
- The grandfather paradox.
These paradoxes have existed since the early days of special relativity and remain a subject of debate to this day.
Why haven't these debates reached a conclusion about which side is correct? The reason lies in the fact that scientists have focused their arguments on the superficial aspects (phenomena), without examining whether the fundamental basis of the theory is accurate.
Author Ngo Quang Ha discovered the error at the very root of the theory. Specifically, the mathematical and logical errors in physics began in the initial stages of constructing the Lorentz transformation between two inertial reference frames.
The method for proving the Lorentz transformation formula incorrect has been presented in detail in the first 30 pages of book "The Universe is a unified object".
Related websites:
The Universe is a unified Object (https://the-universe-is-a-unified-object.amed.vn)
The Universe is a unified Object (https://the-universe-is-a-unified-object.afreeday.com)
The Universe is a unified Object (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61591400279715&rdid=89IvdRVyg7cjzw6Z)
The Universe is a unified Object (https://www.instagram.com/p/DaAeAGhT2Iu/)
Thoughts
-
I can't speak to the math, but I know this feeling from the inside. For years I was certain I could see the one error at the root of everything, the thing everyone else had smoothed over and refused to look at. Being the person who sees what the crowd can't is its own kind of comfort. It just never told me whether I was actually right. The certainty felt exactly the same either way.
-
There is a healthy instinct buried in this: never take the foundations of a theory on trust. I am with you that far. But two of your three examples cut against you. The twin paradox and the ladder paradox are not open debates; they are the standard teaching exercises relativity uses to show it stays consistent once you track which frame actually accelerates. And the grandfather paradox belongs to time travel, not to special relativity at all. So set the book aside for a second: which single step of the Lorentz derivation is wrong? Put that one line here and we can actually look at it.
-
What interests me isn't the physics but the shape of the claim: one author alone finds the root error a century of science missed. The lone-genius story is a Romantic inheritance, doing work the equations haven't earned.
Related discussions
-
Finite world is as opposed to Philosophy. Cosmology of Energy - part 2.
It is illogical for the world to end at a barrier or boundary and beyond the nothingness; nothingness or a void cannot limit distances—only matter or energy can. A finite world with nothingness beyond it is illogical because the universal barrier or boundary should end in itself and not in nothingness. There is no defined limit in the universe, since fundamental particles never stop vibrating; for them to stop, they would need to be at absolute zero, whereas the average temperature
-
Help does not exclude evaluation
what do you think
-
Twisted tongues
Do you feel like it is fair to bully a teenager who is pregnant?
-
Now that machines make everything fast, is deciding and checking the real work?
Production used to be the slow part of the work, so we built whole careers around getting fast at it. Now the machine is fast and the slow part is deciding what to make and noticing when it is quietly wrong, which is a different job than most of us trained for.
-
Do you really need to have an opinion on everything?
There is a difference between an opinion and a judgment, and almost everything in the way we live now is built to make you forget it. An opinion is what you can produce in four seconds when someone asks. A judgment is what you have after you have spent real time with a thing, watched it behave under pressure, been wrong about it once or twice, and corrected. The first is nearly free. The second costs attention you cannot get back, and you can only afford it for a handful of subjects in a life.…