In Spite of their present enjoyment of wide endorsement by the majority of living physicists, Einstein's two theories of relativity must be wrong, for the following reasons:
I. Einstein's two theories of relativity are based upon the assumption, according to which the essence of space and the essence of time behave, in the same way, the essence of matter does; i.e., they can contract, expand, bend, curve, collapse, go faster, go slow, turn around, make big bangs, make big bounces, . . . etc. . . . etc; but that assumption is, fundamentally, flawed and false, because the essence of space as well as the essence of time are, physically and logically, absolutely incapable of doing anything of that sort
II. Einstein's two theories of relativity assume, also, that the essence of space and the essence of time can be united and weaved, together, in order to make one single physical entity called by Albert Einstein and his supporters 'spacetime'. But such a union between two completely incompatible essences is not possible, physically or logically or philosophically or in any other conceivable way or manner.
III. Einstein's two theories of relativity have made use of logically unproven and mathematically untested symbolic systems that have been labeled, by their authors, as geometries and viable alternatives to the Euclidean geometry. But, in reality, those symbolic systems, such as the ones of Hermann Minkowski and Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, can hardly make a coherent collection of algebraic symbols; let alone a solid and logically consistent geometry.
IV. Einstein's two theories of relativity take for granted that the mundane, ordinary, and quite normal physical stuff known as the speed of light is very exceptional and extraordinary. According to these theories, the speed of light is nonaddictive, non-relative, standalone speed, the upper limit for all kinds of speed, and the designated official driver of their so-called 'spacetime' along with the other official driver called the 'gravity of matter'. But all collections of experimental and observational data, in physics right now, indicate, very clearly, that the speed of light is just another speed, no more, and no less.
also not well-defined.
For instance there is supposedly some transition from Newtonian physics to special relativity (SR) upon introducing the assumptions in the 1905 paper on relativity; but it is never defined how Newtonian physics would deal differently to those assumptions than SR, so leaving possibilities such as - the way that SR deals with the math for them is just mistakes. Ideally one would like the assumptions to be defined in math terms as to what they are supposed to mean; but we don't get that and just get vagueness. i.e. Einstein's relativity is undefined (in sense of not being a properly defined theory) and open to numerous different interpretations as to what it could mean. Such numerous interpretations as: Feynman thinking it deals with relativistic mass , and Okun thinking it doesn't (ref: http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~ ... n_okun.pdf) Einstein's relativity meaning different things to different people--- in other words not well-defined.