The elixirjournal one I finally found the article, but I had to log in. I did so and read the article. I didn’t look it over carefully, as its conclusion is already a problem. I suppose I could have dug through the math to see if I can find the problem.

However…and this is the bottom line…relativity works. Time dilation and length contraction are observed. There may be issues in any derivation, however any calculation that predicts something radically different from relativity is simply wrong, as measurements have validated the predictions of relativity.

I did not see any papers linking gravity and E&M. Presumably this would have been in the indjst one.

One thing I did notice is that the elixirjournal editorial board has no physicists….it is predominantly a medical/biological group. It is also true that the indjst editorial board contains no distinguished faculty. Indeed, the editorial board is spread predominantly over the Middle East, India and Africa, with a handful of Indian and Middle Eastern expatriots in Canada.

Now intelligence respects no international borders and there are smart people everywhere. But it seems to me that an excellent journal should have a few distinguished members. Even the chief editor of the journal spent some time teaching in Eritrea, which is hardly a hot spot of international scholarship.

Further, if the paper was as groundbreaking as the author no doubt claims, there are much better journals in which to publish this result.

Questions of editorial boards aside, the most important thing is that no matter what criticism one can level at a specific derivation, the length contraction and time dilation predictions of relativity have been empirically demonstrated. Any calculation that give radically different results is wrong.

This is science and there are no sacred cows. Special relativity can be completely overturned, but that would be a huge deal and you’d see it in all the newspapers. Remember the hoopla over the Fall 2011 announcement that neutrinos might go faster than light. This would be like that times 100.

On the other hand, to expect that level of proof quite misses the point. There are entire tomes on different ways of knowing things, ranging from the experiential (which are suspect) to the logical (which are generally empty). But science doesn’t really aspire to absolute knowledge. What science does is to construct models, driven by logic, math and empiricism. These models are then used to predict new phenomena. If the new phenomena are discovered, we know that the model has not yet been disproven. In fact, that’s the highest level of knowledge to which empirically-driven science can aspire: agrees with lots of phenomena and disagrees with none.

Further, we know that all models have their problems. Newton’s theory of gravity fails in strong fields, although it doesn’t negate the fact that we can shoot a probe well over a billion miles to Pluto and hit a target less than a hundred miles wide. That’s a model that works well under many circumstances and fails under others. That makes it a good, if incomplete model. Since essentially all models have their limitations, we can expect to see this again.

All models are wrong. But some are useful. And the degree to which they are useful is a measure of the degree to which they are right.