Basic Error/s in Special Relativity

Quote from Gertrud Walton's website http://home.btconnect.com/sapere.aude/
http://home.btconnect.com/sapere.aude/page2.html

As we shall see, Einstein's form is "linear" (in x,y,z - on the "variable" t see below) because derived for y, z = 0 only, with a Lorentz Factor that vanishes as soon as a particularly obtuse "mistake" is corrected: namely the failure to correct the relative velocity for the changed unit of time measurement in the second system (to my knowledge, a mistake spotted only by Miles Mathis).

Gertrud, 87 years old, contacted Bruce at CNPS lately and Bruce asked me to get in touch with her and work with her on the CNPS forum. So I emailed Gertrud and asked if we can work together in section 4.1.1.5. of the CNPS forum, which is the section on Miles' theory at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=158 . See the first thread there, Basic Error/s in Special Relativity.

Any of you guys who are interested, please have a look at her website, and consider helping me understand her arguments so I can help present her findings. She's someone who seems to be very knowledgeable on math who appreciates Miles' insights, so this could be a valuable effort. Could it not?

Valuable indeed!

I've only read the first part so far, and it is confusing language for me, more professional and not as accessible, like Miles, for example, but I can figure it out by the other parts and I think I agree with her position. I loved this opening quote from Kant:

Kant wrote:Enlightenment is Man's emergence from self-imposed tutelage, that is to say, from the inability to use the intellect without guidance by another. It is self-imposed if its cause does not lie in a deficiency of the intellect but of the courage and determination to use it autonomously. Sapere aude! Have the courage to think! is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment. (I. Kant, Was ist Aufklärung?)

In the first part, Gertrud is generally saying that Special Relativity has problems with how it uses the time variable. I completely agree with this, as a general statement, and so does Miles. I will have to read the second part to see where it leads but it is already sounding good. She has recognized that SR is geometric and this is a great start.

Gertrud seems to be against a mathematical physics while recognizing that math is an important part of physics. I believe I've said that on a few occasions myself, but not so eloquently. Most people don't seem to understand what it means so it is great to find someone who does, and has such a keen understanding of mathematics as well.

There are parts that I don't understand yet. The later parts may give more insight into their meaning.

There are also parts that I don't agree with, or at least don't agree with my interpretation of her statements so far. So that doesn't mean too much at the moment. Her work deserves to be studied before I make any decisions.

Good find. Dense language for the layman but still better than most professional works I have looked at. Doesn't lay out SR for you in the first part so it assumes an understanding of what all of the variables mean. I think the second part will clarify that.

Thanks for the comments, Nevyn. You're a lot better judge of her material than I am. I look forward to any further comments, if you have time to read more of her stuff.