"Corrections to Special Relativity"

Special Relativity can be defined in terms of the Lorentz
Transformation. In a Force-Length-Time system of units, which are as valid
as the conventional Mass-Length-time system in common use, these
transformations a?h4

Parallel to Velocity Vector

Force = 1
Length = 1/(1-V^2)/c^2)^0.5
Time = (1-V^2)/c^2)^0.5

Velocity Transverse to Velocity Vector

Force = 1/(1-V^2)/c^2)^0.5
Length = 1
Time = (1-V^2)/c^2)^0.5

* It will be noted that the Lorentz Transformation for Transverse Force
provided is the reciprocal of the conventionally accepted value. The
transformation provided is readily derived using the accepted values of the
Lorentz Transformations for Transverse Length, Parallel Length, and of Time.
The currently accepted transformation for Transverse Force differs its
currently accepted value because it was apparently derived using Maxwell's
Equations.

There is a fundamental error in the use of Maxwell's Equations in the
derivation of the Lorentz Transformation for Transverse Force. The
derivation relies upon the velocity of light and introduces an error when
used between velocity reference frames. Both The Special Relativity and The
Lorentz Transformation-Aether Theory teach that the velocity of light is the
same when measured in any reference frame. Since velocity is length divided
by time, the Lorentz Transformations for Velocity must be equal to the
Lorentz Transformation for Length divided by the Lorentz Transformation for
Time. For reference frames which differ in velocity, we find that the
velocity of light, which is the distance that light travels in a given time,
CANNOT be unchanged between reference frames which differ in velocity if the
velocity of light is found to be unchanged within a reference frame (as it
is). It follows that any derivation of the Lorentz Transformation for
Transverse Force based upon Maxwell's Equations IS NOT VALID and its
conventionally accepted value is incorrect. The corrected value of the
Lorentz Transformation for Transverse force eliminates the absurdity of "The
right Angle Lever Paradox".

The Lorentz Transformation for Mass is simply derived and is found to
be equal to (1-V^2/C^2)^1.5 and not equal to the currently accepted value of
(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5. The difference results from the fact that the value is
derived for an incremental velocity change. When one mathematically
integrates the effects of an incremental velocity change between the
velocity of 0 and C the conventional Lorentz Transformation for Mass is
obtained.

The most important result of the investigation is the determination of
how kinetic energy is stored or released in matter as a result of change in
velocity. This is done by the simple expedient of considering the effect of
a velocity change on the energy stored in a compressed spring. Most
satisfactorily this is all that is required to understand the nature of
inertial mass, See http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- . If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.