Dr. Carezani's Relativity theory Revived and corrected.
120663
it doesn't. it's no where near as good.
435082
Probably you mean the classical Galilei transformation.\nThe relativistic one is the Lorentz transformation.\nGrüss Ihnen.\n\nTh
8002
Also note that entropy formulation has a modified form to include relativity which is the case for black holes.
36252
Well, there is no doubt that Einstiens theory of relativity has flaws, it is just the best theory available.  For instance it fails to addequately explain the perihelion advance of the planets or the muon decay of radioactive materials.  There are several alternative theories out there.\n\nThe first thing I'd recommend is doing a little research to ensure it isn't an idea that has already been discussed.  Once you have satisfied yourself I recommend reading some physics journals (they should have a few in your public library) to see how scientific papers are written.\n\nAt that point you should send your ideas to multiple physicists and professors (to ensure no one can steal your ideas) and either ask them to assist you in submitting a paper / sponsor you, or write the paper yourself and submit it.\n\nKeep in mind you will receive a lot of criticism, new ideas are always met that way.  You may in fact be wrong or have overlooked something fundamental... in all likelihood you have.  But regardless, you should be applauded for trying to think outside of the box.  The world is full of followers who take everything at face value, the world is also full of employers who like people who are willing to look in new directions.\n\nI hope you are able to continue with this mindset and handle the criticism you encounter.  If you do it is very likely that someday you will have something very worthwhile to contribute to the world.\n\nGood luck and I look forward to seeing your mark upon the world.\n\nPS. I do understand the theory of relativity, and anyone who thinks it is flawless should do a little more studying themselves.
137175
Evidence I have seen points to the contrary: that the universe is acutally accelerating in expansion. The majoraty of scholars propose that theory to explain a universe without a singularity, but the evidence favors an accelerating universe.
129126
Neither Observer EXPERIENCES a change. The ONLY way any comparison can be made between the two unmentioned but essential clocks is to bring them together in the same rest frame again: then whichever clock ticktocked the least would be shown to be the one which accelerated and slowed down in their relative travel.
453139
I THINK YOUR DIAGNOSIS IS ONCE AGAIN ACCURATE DOCTOR
184602
In theory it affects the passage of time aboard the vessel IF it travels in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation... I suggest you read some Stephen Hawking.
368057
You're right--Einstein was the champion of that idea for many years.
511275
Here is a good treatment on it:\n\nhttp://qhr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/7/893.pdf
369051
hmmm  it seems to me you have generated a textbook answer.  Well done.
128096
He was a theoretical physicist
659408
Wow.\n\nA few people here know what they're talking about.  A few.  Very few.\n\nMost of these responses are absolutely hilarious.  Most of them are from people trying to sound smart, in which case they do NOT.  Other cases are from kids with big imaginations, with "Anything is possible!"\n\nEinstein was brilliant, no question.  But all great scientists are capable of mistakes, and Einstein was no exception.\n\nHis theory on time travel was based on the speed of light and the "paradox" in which light travels at a fixed rate of speed.  This is true; light moves at 186,000 mps no matter what conditions are in place.\n\nHis theory's flaw is accounted to the fact that light has NO mass.  Light, in it's fixed movement, cannot be compared to any living organism (which is made up of mass) or any other object.  Any object made up of mass (for example, a human being, or any kind of lightspeed-capable rocket ship) does NOT have a fixed speed; therefore the velocity equation paradox that Einstein based his theory on does not apply to them.\n\nThis is all I want to say tonight.  Anyone who understands his theories will understand what I've said here, so think about my statements.  Let me know what you think (again, only those of you who understand what Einstein's theories were all about), as I'm no expert on relativity.  Like everyone else posting on a Yahoo answers forum about Albert Einstein and his theories on time travel, I'm just a fan.  Don't act like any of us are any more.\nEveryone else:  Please don't worry about it.\n\nAlthough I am skeptical by nature, like any smart person, it is NOT my goal to bash the idea of time travel.  After I spotted the flaw in Einstein's theory I presented it to many professionals in the field (or the few that I know, anyway) and have so far received very positive feedback.  I searched online as well and have discovered that others seem to have come up with the same idea, or similar.  Let me know what you think about the whole deal.\n\nBeing proven wrong only makes you smarter.
663442
The primary claim of Autodynamics is that the equations of the Lorentz transformation are incorrectly formulated to describe relativistic effects, which would invalidate special relativity and general relativity. The effect of the revised equations proposed in Autodynamics is to cause particle mass to decrease with particle velocity, being exchanged with kinetic energy (with mass being zero and kinetic energy being equal to the rest mass at c). This exchange between mass and energy is the proposed mechanism underlying most of the derived conclusions of Autodynamics.\n\nSecondary claims of Autodynamics include:\n\n    * the nonexistence of the neutrino,\n    * the existence of additional particles that have not been observed by mainstream physicists (including the "picograviton" and the "electromuon"),\n    * the existence of additional decay modes for muons and interaction modes for energetic atomic nuclei.\n\nIn particular, autodynamics proponents cite a 1946 experiment by William W. Buechner and Robert J. Van de Graaff which failed to observe any "missing energy" when a high-energy electron beam stopped in a calorimeter[1]; this result rejected the idea that the energy losses reported for the scattering of beta-rays by heavy nuclei could be accounted for by the emission of neutrinos (as had been suggested by Ellis & Wooster[11] and Meitner & Orthmann[12]). Although a legitimate question in the 1940s, the result is clearly consistent with mainstream relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics. Carezani claims that the results are consistent with AD[13] and, for unclear reasons, inconsistent with relativity. AD proponents generally claim that all published observations of the neutrino are due to experimental errors.
506960
No, because gravity still has not been unified with the other three fundamental forces of electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force (which has been unified with electromagnetism) and the strong nuclear force.\n\nHowever, relativity theory was a great leap forward in understanding how gravity works. It would have been figured out eventually without Einstein, but possibly not for another hundred years, that is, right about now. \n\nIt's fascinating to have this exotic knowledge about nature, but sometimes I wonder if it's worth the price of also having to live with the existence of nuclear weapons.
247571
Einsteins theory was that space turned back on itself, like a figure eight.
318106
I certainly believe he would eventually have come to a conclusive resolution to the problem because Western Science as well as Eastern Philosophy are being unified in the same way, by accepting the importance of intuitive thinking as a complementary element in relation to logical thinking in getting to T/truth/s.  Eastern thought has intuitively understood universal/existential truths for thousands of years longer than Western scientific deductive reasoning has allowed Western civilization to understand those same universalities.  Math and Philosophy are unifying because the universe is unifying.  Let me give you an example I got from a book called The Tao of Physics.  It provided philosophical proof that because of the elemental nature of the universe it is possible to travel in time, and then the author proved it using mathematical formulas provided by Western Science to support truth that had been formulated over a thousand years ago.  This is what I mean when I say they are unifying.  And, I believe Einstein would have come to his conclusions in the same way because so many of his colleagues were beginning to become involved in the study of Eastern philosophy as a viable approach to understanding the nature of the universe.\n\nNow, understand that I am not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination. I am an English professor by trade and a scholar by heart.  But, everything I have read over the years about this issue among many others having to do with the nature of reality and its relationship to our omniverses points in this direction.  Yet, I'm still afraid I am being more intuitive than I am being logical.  As a Libra, it satisfies my nature though, to come to believe these kinds of things the way I come to believe them.\n\nIt's not much of a mathematical answer, but it is an answer of sorts.  I hope it gives peace and contentment to you.\n\nCC Ryder