Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conference Series LLC LTD Events with over 1000+ Conferences, 1000+ Symposiums
and 1000+ Workshops on Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business.

Explore and learn more about Conference Series LLC LTD : World’s leading Event Organizer


4th International Conference on Physics

Berlin, Germany

Bernardo Gut

Bernardo Gut

Volkshochschule beider Basel, Switzerland

Title: An immanent-logical analysis of the foundations of SRT


Biography: Bernardo Gut


Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) belongs to the set of dogmatic–deducible theories. Einstein based the SRT on
two postulates, which prescribe, with regard to certain settings, the kind of sensory appearances, i.e. observations, above
all measurements, that are to be expected. Its postulates are:
1.Postulate of Relativity (= PoR), insisting that in inertial frames of reference K°, K' moving reciprocally at a constant speed ǀvǀ
along their parallel x°–x'–axes identical laws of Nature have to be valid.
2.Postulate of Constant Velocity of Light (= PoL), initially declaring that for observers in K° a light signal L°, emitted by a
source Q°of K° along its x°–axis, moves at velocity ǀcǀ, independently of any motion of Q°.
According to the PoR, the PoL must also hold good for observers in K', but only so if symmetric premises to those valid for
observers in K° are given for observers in K' – this being a strict, irrevocable conditio sine qua non. Relativists, however, apply
the PoL together with the PoR directly to L°, without transferring the source of light from K° to K', i.e. without assembling in
the frame of reference K' a symmetric configuration to the one previously established for the frame of reference K°. This lack
of symmetry means that relativists fail to apply either of the postulates properly; in fact, they suddenly change the meaning
they had initially conferred to the two expressions 'PoR' and 'PoL', thereby transgressing the fundamental Principle of Identity.
Furthermore, they break the Principle of Non–Contradiction, since they had previously declared the mutual relative speed of
K' and K° to be ǀvǀ, thereby implicitly inferring that the same real units were meant by the same terms (e.g. 'm' and 's' to specify
velocity) in both frames of reference K° and K'. It follows that the SRT is logically inconsistent; as such, it is not possible to
corroborate the theory experimentally.