2005 was known as the Year of Einstein, and there was an upsurge in learning special relativity. I was fortunate enough to get a book from Professor Huang Zhixun of the Beijing Broadcasting Institute (now known as Communication University of China). The title of the book is: "Theory and Experiment of Superluminal Speed ??Research". It is a systematic analysis of the special theory of relativity and is also very involved in the study of superluminal speed.

Special relativity is A. The theory founded by Einstein is mainly based on two postulates and a transformation.

One transformation is the Lorentz transformation (the transformation between different inertial systems must be the loretz transformation).

The two postulates are: the principle of relativity (that is: the laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems.) and the principle of invariance of the speed of light (that is: light always has a certain speed in a vacuum, which is consistent with the observer or regardless of the movement of the light source).

Thus, there are four inferences (the moving ruler becomes shorter; the moving clock becomes slower; the static mass of the photon is zero; matter cannot exceed the speed of light) and three relationships (speed synthesis formula; mass speed formula; mass-energy relationship formula).

I think that special relativity is not a scientific theory. Please look at the following questions:

Why can’t similar problems be explained in the same way?

Example 1 : There is a kidney trauma patient in Urumqi who has developed symptoms of urinary poisoning and is in urgent need of dialysis or kidney transplant. Otherwise, he will live for up to 12 hours. After checking on the Internet, it takes 47 hours at the fastest to get from Urumqi to Shanghai by train. He will definitely die by taking the train. On the way, after requesting support from the air force, his illness was treated promptly. For him, it can be said that the Air Force has brought Urumqi and Shanghai closer; it can also be said that the Air Force has extended his life. People say that planes are faster than trains.

Example 2: The muon produced at an altitude of 20 kilometers above the earth has an intrinsic lifespan of only 2.2 microseconds. Even if it moves at the speed of light, it can only travel up to 660 meters. In fact, it can go as far as On the ground, the special theory of relativity explains that it extends its lifespan, or that it shortens the distance. Why can't people say that its speed is faster than the speed of light?

For patients, as for the aftermath of rescue I did not consider the continuation of my life. I only considered the trip from Urumqi to Shanghai. They all have a finite lifespan, they all walk a certain distance, and they can all be calculated at two speeds. Why are they not the same problem? I would like to ask, is the special theory of relativity wrong?

The special theory of relativity treats more than Objects moving at the speed of light are said to have a speed not exceeding the speed of light, just like saying that the speed of an airplane is not as fast as a train. It can also explain many problems, but these explanations are all specious. The effects (time delay and shrinkage) mentioned in the special theory of relativity are only felt by the moving object itself and have no impact on the surrounding environment. Besides, the space and the measuring rod are shortened at the same time, and the measured data does not change! Muons in high altitude can travel to the ground from 20 kilometers away. The fact that it takes 2.2 microseconds shows that it is an object moving at the speed of light.

In modern times, for the research on elementary particles, most of them use "velocity selector" to measure the velocity. The velocity selector that measures high-energy particles has never measured tachyon particles. I think there is an error in the instrument measurement. , as long as the speed V measured by the "speed selector" is substituted into V real=V measured/(1-V2 measured/c2,0)1/2,0

The so-called real speed V real is found Changes in mass, length, and time are no longer relevant. Classical mechanics can be applied.

In this way, space, time, and mass remain constant, and classical mechanics can be applied.

If you insist that objects moving faster than the speed of light move slower than the speed of light, what is the difference between insisting that the speed of an airplane is not as fast as a train?

For example, in the popular science book "The World of Physics" "Adventures" said: "Does it make any difference whether we ride faster or whether the streets become shorter? I need to run through ten intersections to get to the post office. If I pedal faster, the streets will become shorter." It has to be shorter, and we will arrive earlier. Look, we have actually arrived." In fact, this statement just requires that it be able to explain the past. As for whether it is a scientific explanation, there is no need to worry about it. . In the wave of new discoveries in natural science impacting the classical theories of physics, many scientists are satisfied with being able to explain natural phenomena. The emergence of the "special theory of relativity" just caters to this trend of thought.

In "Sina Love Questions".

I have repeatedly advised students not to delve into the theory of relativity before they have completed their studies, but to memorize it as the teacher teaches. Otherwise they will not get credits and it will be difficult for them to graduate!

Einstein was just lucky. He was born when original scientific knowledge encountered problems and was in urgent need of explanations. Even theories that were not quite correct would be popular.

His simultaneous proofreading method is simply impossible to achieve.

The Lorentz transformation has two other results: time shortening and space expansion.

It uses geometric shapes and kinematic shapes without deliberately distinguishing them when applied.

Several of his inferences cannot be applied at the same time. They can only be used -------- or equivalently.