Was Einstein wrong about Special Relativity?

Many notable scientists such as the French mathematician, Henri Poincare rejected Einstein’s Theory of Relativity due to it’s lack of sound mathematical procedures, absence of clearness of vision or rigorous arguments.

It has been noted that often when Einstein gave a public speech, that less than ten percent of the audience spoke German and out of these only a few were physicists. Even though 99% of the audience didn’t have the slightest idea what he had said in his mysterious presentation, he still got a standing ovation. Was this good science or just a popular fad? Should populism be the basis for accepting or rejecting a scientific theory?

There are two obvious ways in which a scientific theory can arrive at false conclusions. These both may project the deceptive appearance of being good science. These mistaken outcomes depend on how scientists use or misuse different models in the discovery process.

MATHEMATICAL MODELS are abstract, idealized, imaginary models which contain characteristics and assumptions which cannot exist in reality (such as points, lines, triangles, spheres, etc.) These models can be purely logical, purely mathematical, geometric, kinematic, dynamic or electromagnetic. All of these models are based on the LAWS OF MATHEMATICS (symbols, equations, formulas etc.) which only approximate the physical LAWS OF NATURE. These mathematical models produce deductive conclusions which only apply to the idealized mathematical models.

PHYSICAL MODELS are real models composed of physical objects which are used in empirical experiments. By repeating identical (as far as possible) testing with these models, inductive conclusions can be made. These inductive conclusions, because they are the results of physical experiments, are the fundamental method used by science in an attempt to understand the LAWS OF NATURE. Knowledge about the real Universe must come from physics and not from mathematics. Experience has always been the primary guide in human reasoning concerning physical facts.

METAPHYSICAL MODELS are sophistic models which contain both mathematical characteristics and physical characteristics. These are mingled or mixed models. Neither mathematical deductions nor physical inductive conclusions can be produced from these models because they cannot exist in reality. These are pseudoscience models which result from “thought experiments”. These are purely imaginary mental creations. Any conclusions whatsoever that these models produce are completely irrelevant to anything. They cannot produce any valid understanding of reality. A sophist is someone who deceives people based on clever-sounding, but flawed arguments or explanations. However, these fallacious theories do produce popular imaginary science fiction tales about time travel (Back to the Future, motion picture) and spaceships that travel at the speed of light (Star Trek, motion picture).

A clear understanding and separation of these first two models (math and physics) and the necessary role that they play in the legitimate scientific method, should be clearly acknowledged by all who engage in any search for truth and understanding about the laws of Nature.

FALSE SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS: Two methods that may result in false scientific conclusions are:

1. False conclusions may be produced by applying the deductive conclusions from the math models to the physical models. This cannot be done legitimately because the two models are intrinsically different. Any analogous comparison between any two models can only suggest possible or speculative outcomes. Only by testing physical models can similar outcomes be verified. Analogous conclusions cannot be assumed. Only models that are mutually similar in most characteristics, such as comparing a biological model with another biological model are likely to produce similar outcomes. Alternatively, comparing a biological model with a mechanical model would not likely produce similar outcomes, and no assumptions should be made. This is essentially the case when a mathematical model is compared with any physical model. These two systems are composed of very different methods. Any conclusions from one model should not be applied to the other. There are always many characteristics (ignored or unknown) of a physical model that may invalidate the conclusions from the idealized mathematical model.

2. The second method which may produce false scientific conclusions is the use of a metaphysical model. These models are typically used in pseudoscience. (Examples are: Scientific Creationism or Intelligent Design). They may present the sophistical fabricated appearance of being scientific and of being based on physical models or using rigorous mathematical procedures. These models are neither physical nor mathematical. These imaginary concoctions simply cannot exist in reality. Physical inductive experiments cannot be carried out on metaphysical models because they contain non-existent mathematical characteristics. Deductive conclusions cannot be made from these models because they contain physical objects which cannot be idealized. Metaphysical models produce nothing that is natural, logical or reliable.

It is this second fallacious method of using metaphysical models that has been used exclusively by the Relativitists. In Relativity, there are no rigorous mathematical models. There are no relevant physical models which can be tested experimentally. (Real trains don’t travel at the speed of light and apparently no one has yet created a Time Machine, like H. G. Wells imagined). In Relativity, all conclusions are derived strictly from imaginary metaphysical models. Einstein did not conduct any physical experiments. These Relativity models are all mixed, mingled models which cannot exist in the natural Universe. Like mathematics, they can only exist in the human imagination or ‘thought experiments’. However unlike mathematics, they cannot be formalized. Pseudoscience is bad mathematics, bad physics and it is strictly a fallacious method of deception. (Fallacies are the most common form of human deception. There are over 174 different ways to create a fallacy). Einstein’s methodology was almost totally based on analogy abuse, metaphors, allegories, unjustified assumptions and metaphysical models. Einstein was essentially a metaphysical philosopher or sophist.

These preceding ideas about models should be kept in mind when considering Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity.

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is composed of two parts: GENERAL RELATIVITY which offers an alternative theory of gravity (from Newton‘s) and the SPECIAL THEORY which deals with the equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc2) and theoretical ideas describing the relationship between matter, time and space. It is this last idea regarding human cognition of reality that has stirred up so much scientific debate and popular interest, primarily because it defies common sense.

This present brief description of Relativity does not attempt to analyze in detail or explain Relativity as a mathematical or physical presentation. It is primarily the assumptions and methodology of the Relativitists that will be investigated or questioned. Any thoughtful person does not have to be a mathematician or a physicist to recognize the basic flaws in the assumptions and methodology used in this metaphysical theory.

1919 SOLAR ECLIPSE: The more sensationalized generally accepted ‘proof’ of General Relativity was the results of the experiment done on May 29, 1919 during a solar eclipse. In Nov 1919, the announcement came from London, that after studying the photos taken during the eclipse, that the results had verified Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. This announcement was not entirely truthful. During the eclipse, three separate experiments had been conducted. These expeditions sent to the island of Principle, West Africa and Brazil were organized by England’s Astronomer Royal and Sir Arthur Eddington (English astronomer and founder of modern astrophysics). These photographic studies were all only approximations due to the nature of the observations and the quality of the equipment used. In one of these experiments, the outcome agreed with Einstein’s calculations. In the second experiment, the outcome agreed with Newton’s calculations. In the third experiment, the outcome was somewhere in between. The overall outcome of these solar experiments did not prove Einstein’s theory. The national report issued from London stating that it did, was obviously based on selective data. The fact that Eddington was a strong believer in Einstein’s theories may have prejudiced the London report. The outcome which had verified Newton’s calculations was not mentioned even though it was equally as valid.

A second ‘proof’ of General Relativity regarding the orbit of the planet Mercury, contains too many unknowns to substantiate any mathematical theory. The composition and mass of every body in the solar system is only an approximation, even of our own planet Earth.

QUANTUM THEORY: The 1919 solar eclipse experiment only demonstrated the validity of the Quantum theory, it did not verify the Relativity theory and it did not invalidate Newton‘s laws. During the eclipse, the light followed a curved path due to the gravitational field of the Sun, making it appear in a shifted position different from where it was known to be. This only demonstrated that light has some of the characteristics of mass, which is the fundamental premise of the Quantum theory. This shifted position did not require an exact measurement to demonstrate the quantum characteristic, the shift itself was enough to establish that fact. All three of the experimental outcomes verified the Quantum theory. The outcome of this solar experiment did not justify replacing Newton’s fundamental principles with Relativity. The Quantum theory together with Newton’s laws, completely explains the curvature of light through a gravitational field. These studies in Quantum theory have had the essential consequences of refining many mathematical formulas and equations to include these additional facts about the nature of light. These refinements would have been made sooner or later with or without Einstein. It was the Quantum theory that was the fundamental revolution in science, not the Relativity theory. Max Planck was the physicist most responsible for the origin of the idea of quantum when he published his paper on Black Body Radiation in 1900. Einstein helped to further establish the idea of quantum with his paper in 1905 on the Photoelectric Effect of Light. Both physicists were awarded the Nobel Prize for these papers. Neither of these papers had anything to do with the Relativity principle beyond increasing the understanding of the nature of light. Newton had also recognized that light could be considered as both wave and particle. This is not a contradiction. Light is simply waves of particles (quantum). After all, waves must be waves of ‘something‘ physical. Ocean waves are both waves and particles (water molecules).

The above discussion of the solar eclipse and the Quantum theory was presented to introduce a basic understanding of the physical nature of light. This is important in order to understand the flaw in the assumption about the speed of light which was introduced into the Special Theory of Relativity.

HUMAN REASONING: There are three basic methods of reasoning: ANALOGOUS , INDUCTIVE and DEDUCTIVE. The analogous method relies on making speculative comparative evaluations between two different models. The more similar the two models are, the more probable the outcomes will be similar. The inductive method relies on statistical conclusions from physical experimentation. Both of these methods can produce only probability conclusions. The third method of reasoning is the deductive mathematical system. This is the only method which produces logical deductions, not probabilities. These conclusions depend upon the truthfulness of the postulates or assumptions. Mathematics is founded on logic and reason. Sophism is the exact opposite. However these math deductive conclusions only apply to the math model, not to reality.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." A. Einstein. (This statement was made at a later period in his life. Einstein seems to have ignored this principle when he wrote the Special Theory in 1905.)

ZENO’S PARADOX: For those who are non-mathematicians, and are unfamiliar with Zeno’s Paradox, a brief description is now given. Zeno of Elva (5th century B.C.) created several math problems, one of which is called the “dichotomy paradox’. This is called dichotomy, because it involves repeatedly dividing a distance into an infinite series (…1/16, 1/8, ¼/, ½, 1). The paradox simply states that one cannot travel from one point to another point without first going half of the distance. Since half of the remaining distance is always a positive number, motion is impossible.

And yet it is obvious that in the real world, motion is possible. This is the paradox. The explanation of this paradox is really quite simple. This paradox consists of two models, the MATHEMATICAL MODEL and the PHYSICAL MODEL. In the math model, there can be an infinite series because the distance is between two points. These points are mathematical abstractions which cannot exist in reality. So that traveling half of the distance can continue forever in an infinite sequence. However in the physical world there can be no such thing as points. If the math points are replaced with real physical objects (no matter how small they are), then they no longer have the same characteristics as points. Real objects have real physical dimensions which will prevent the series from being infinite.

ZENO’S METAPHYSICAL MODEL: When the mathematical ‘points’ in Zeno’s model are replaced with two real physical objects (for example, rigid rods), then the mathematical operations can no longer be utilized. The model is literally a math model containing physical objects. This model is no longer a math model or a physical model. It is now a METAPHYSICAL MODEL or pseudoscience model. It contains both math characteristics and physical objects. This is a mingled model. Metaphysics is the unnatural mixing of abstract math and material physics.

Zeno’s Paradox was the result of starting with a math model and then shifting to a physical model. The characteristics of the math model or a pseudoscience model cannot be applied to the real physical model. Mathematical operations cannot be applied to real physical objects because all physical measurements (such as width, length, height and velocity) are only approximations.

HYPOTHETICAL ZENO’S METAPHYSICAL MODEL: What if, Zeno’s metaphysical model was allowed to use the same method of unjustified assumptions that the Relativitists use?

In Zeno’s metaphysical model there are two objects (assume they are rigid rods) at the two ‘points‘. What if these two objects were allowed to change their physical characteristics, in the same manner as the two objects (rigid rods) did in the Relativity model? In the Relativity model, the two rigid rods became shorter (in length). What if the rigid rods in Zeno’s model became physically shorter? If these conditions were allowed, the dichotomy could continue indefinitely. (With each division of the distance, the rods simply became shorter. The rigid rods could shrink to infinity). This would allow an infinite series of divisions and prove that motion was impossible.

The analogy of the math model and the physical model in Zeno’s Paradox exemplifies the correct method that is commonly used to disprove a theory. The resulting contradictions or paradox proved the theory did not apply to reality. This disproves the theory that motion is impossible.

However by allowing the Relativity method to be used in Zeno‘s metaphysical model, it is proven that motion is impossible. This is the same nonsensical conclusion that is arrived at in the Relativity theory and it is arrived at by the same method. First by using a metaphysical model and secondly by changing the physical characteristics of the objects (rigid rods) to agree with the original unjustified assumptions.

The correct honest conclusion of this theory would be to admit that the unjustified assumption is wrong. The wrong procedure would be to change the outcome (physical characteristics) to agree with the assumptions.

Metaphysical models only produce nonsense. Facts cannot be changed to fit a theory.

(Einstein is quoted as once jokingly stating “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”).

EINSTEIN’S PARADOX: Einstein’s Paradox in the Theory of Special Relativity repeats the same scientifically unorthodox procedure as Zeno‘s Paradox. In the Lorentz transform, there also exist mathematical ‘points’. The Relativity Theory inserts ‘observers’, ‘clocks’ and ‘rigid rods’ into these mathematical ‘points’. This is identical to inserting ‘observers’ or objects into the two ‘points’ in Zeno’s Paradox. When this is done, the model is no longer a math model, it is a mingled, METAPHYSICAL MODEL. This also results in conclusions which cannot be applied to reality. Conclusions from either math models or mingled models cannot be applied to physical objects. Physical facts (dimensions of rigid rods) cannot be arbitrarily changed to agree with false assumptions.

SOME SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

Selected quotations are from Arthur I. Miller’s English translation of : ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein (1905). (The numerical listing are the section titles of the 1905 paper).

I. KINEMATICAL PART

1. Definition of Simultaneity (section title).

If a MATERIAL POINT is at rest relative to this coordinate system, it‘s position can be defined relative to it by RIGID MEASURING RODS employing the methods of EUCLIDIAN GEOMETRY, and it can be expressed in CARTESIAN COORDINATES.” (quote from section 1).

In mathematics (Euclidian geometry) there is no such thing as a MATERIAL POINT or RIGID MEASURING RODS. This section is a mixture of math models (Cartesian coordinate systems and geometry) and physical models (rigid objects), which is not possible in reality. (What is the definition of a MATERIAL POINT? This is self contradictory). The introduction of the idea of a MATERIAL POINT makes this section a mingled, METAPHYSICAL MODEL which cannot be manipulated mathematically or physically and from which no conclusions whatsoever can be made about reality.

This section also confuses the SIMULTANEITY OF TWO EVENTS with the OBSERVATION OF TWO EVENTS. The laws of mathematics cannot be confused with the laws of Nature. The first is an abstraction, the second is reality.

2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times (section title).

This section DEFINES (by fiat) the two assumptions of the Special Theory:

a. The speed of light is constant. (If this is true, it is a law of Nature).

b. Physical laws (the laws of Nature) have the same mathematical form (the laws of mathematics) throughout the Universe.

The obvious flaw in these postulates is that the first postulate is contained in the second postulate. Therefore the theory only has one postulate. In this case the only conclusion possible is the second postulate. In other words, the only conclusion possible is already contained in the assumption.

This second assumption states that the mathematical forms are equal. It does not state that they are equal to reality. The LAWS OF MATHEMATICS are only approximations of the LAWS OF NATURE. Approximations can never be equal, because they are not exact, they are only estimates. Estimates cannot be equal to reality.

The problem with the second postulate is that it doesn’t actually state anything real. It simply states that the LAWS OF MATHEMATICS are the same throughout the Universe. Since these are all abstractions, the postulate makes no statement about reality. The obvious truism of this postulate is that the LAWS OF MATHEMATICS throughout the Universe are equal approximations of the LAWS OF NAURE. This is purely hypothetical, since no one has actually traveled throughout the Universe and compared THE LAWS OF MATHEMATICS which were hypothetically written by other intelligent beings on other planets.

Consider a RIGID ROD at rest whose length L when measured by a (RIGID) MEASURING ROD which is also at rest. We now IMAGINE the axis of the rod lying along the x-axis of the resting coordinate system, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the x-axis in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod.” (quote from section 2).

The MATHEMATICAL components of this (imagined) METAPHYSICAL model include the xyz Cartesian coordinate system, the uniform motion, the parallel translation and constant velocity. The PHYSICAL components of this METAPHYSICAL model include the rigid rods and the act of physically (by a human observer) measuring (which can only be an approximation) an object. This also violates the law of the Conservation of Energy by mysteriously adding energy (force) to the system when the resting rod is given a constant velocity. Also the uniform, linear motion of the rigid rod is a mathematical idealization which can’t exist in reality.

This section is based on a mingled, METAPHYSICAL MODEL (rigid bodies, observers and real physical isochronal clocks in a mathematical Cartesian coordinate system). These imaginary clocks can only be used in MATH MODELS and the rigid bodies and observers can only exist in PHYSICAL MODELS. These are metaphysical, imagined models or “thought experiments” which cannot exist in reality.

THE FALSE ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: During the late 19th century, most physicists had an incorrect conception regarding the fundamental nature of light. The prevalent opinion was that light was not composed of particles (now called quantum) but was simply waves that traveled through space. To account for these waves, the existence of a hypothetically small substance called the ‘Ether’ was imagined. The Michaelson-Morley experiment in 1881 was conducted in an attempt to prove it’s existence. This experiment failed to detect anything. From these results, Einstein drew a false conclusion. He interpreted the results as proof that there was no privileged frame of reference for the entire Universe. Upon this assumption he constructed the Theory of Special Relativity.

The fundamental motivation for the Michaelson-Morley experiment was to find such a fixed or privileged (Central) frame of reference for all (Absolute) motion in the Universe. This was an important objective, but the method used was wrong. The method to discover the ‘Ether’ was based on the false conception of the nature of light. The actual quantum composition of light made the ‘Ether’ unnecessary. The search for the fixed frame of reference should have been focused on the (then unknown) expansion of the Universe. The velocity of light is not changed by the movement of the light source, but the frequency is changed (this produces the red shift in the light waves which led to the recognition of the expanding Universe).

Almost all scientists today agree with Einstein’s assumption that there is no fixed frame of reference for the Universe. This also induces them to accept Einstein’s false assumption about the speed of light. However, the Big Bang theory implies that there is a fixed (Central) frame of reference in the Universe. This fixed frame of reference for all (Absolute) motion is the physical location of the Big Bang. It is the location from which all universal expansion began. It is from this location alone that the constant speed of light can be defined (or any motion of any object). This location cannot be known because of the immense size of the Universe. It can only be hypothetically conceived or roughly estimated. The conception that every location in the Universe is expanding or moving away from every other location is an abstract idea which is essentially true but it doesn’t negate the real characteristic that the total mass of the Universe still has a common center. The expansion of any real mass, must have a mass to begin with and a real location. An expanding Universe doesn’t imply a moving Universe. If there is nothing outside of the Universe, then the idea of a moving Universe has no meaning, and the entire Universe should be considered stationary. A stationary mass must have a stationary common center. This is the Central frame of reference, (0,0,0,0).

Astronomers have measured the movements of the stars in our Milky Way galaxy in order to approximate the center of the galaxy. Even for our local galaxy, this method only produces an approximate location. This is difficult to do with the billions of galaxies for the entire Universe, but this is the only way to hypothetically predict the center of the Universe. This center is the hypothetical fixed frame of reference. Call it the Big Bang frame of reference at location (x,y,z,t) or (0,0,0,0) at time zero. It has also been called the Central frame of reference.

Why is the existence of a fixed frame of reference important to the Special Theory of Relativity and the speed of light? It is because the definition of velocity has no meaning unless it is with reference to a specific frame of reference. All light (quantum) has constant motion (or Absolute motion) only relative to the only fixed (Central) frame of reference (Big Bang). All other motion can only be relative motion.

Einstein’s observation that the speed of light is constant was probably correct, but without a fixed frame of reference, there is nothing for it to be constant in relation to. A velocity must be motion relative to something else. Einstein’s assumption that the speed of light is constant relative to all moving frames of reference was partially correct. But it is correct only if the relative movement of the different frames of reference are taken into account relative to the Big Bang frame of reference. The false assumption about the relative speed of light was a consequence of Einstein’s false rejection of the Big Bang frame of reference for the entire Universe.

The classical methods of the addition and subtraction of velocities of moving objects was based on inductive conclusions of repeated empirical experiments. These general mathematical laws are only approximations but they also agree with so-called common sense. When the Special Theory was adopted, these inductive conclusions and common sense ideas should not have been so hastily abandoned. Especially since the Special Theory simultaneously required accepting contradictory notions about time and space. (Contradictions in scientific theories usually indicate that the theory has some false assumptions or logical errors). Common sense is of course not always correct, but it is a judgment based on physical experience which should not be discarded without verifiable physical demonstrations. It should not be abandoned solely based on metaphysical models.

Einstein’s fundamental assumption about the constant speed of light when measured from different moving frames of reference was hastily accepted by most physicists because of the scale of velocities involved. In other words, it couldn’t be disproved. The crude estimates made by human measurements are completely inadequate to detect the very small relative variations which are introduced by the slow moving observers. A physical analogy might be if a person standing on the beach removed one water molecule from the Pacific Ocean. An observer would conclude that the volume of the ocean had not changed, but in reality it has decreased by one molecule. This one molecule is insignificant compared to the immense number of water molecules in the entire ocean. This scale is analogous to the change in the velocity of light when the slow speed of the observer is either added to or subtracted from the speed of light. All crude measurements by humans of this speed cannot possibly measure such small differences. This difference, for all practical purposes is, and should be of trivial importance. However it is still just as real as the measurement of one water molecule in a vast ocean.

Accepting the Big Bang frame of reference as the fixed (Central) frame of reference for the entire Universe, all other moving frames of reference must still conform to the common sense classical laws for the addition and subtraction of relative velocities. From the human macro-perspective measurements of the speed of light, the approximate speed will be the same from different slow moving frames of reference. Only in very fast moving frames of references would differences in the relative speed of light become apparent. (This refers only to the relative speed of light).

Nevertheless, these small relative differences in the speed of light, invalidate the fundamental assumption of the Special Theory of Relativity.

The entire concept and definition of velocity requires a frame of reference.

(“I have seen a cat without a smile, but I have never seen a smile without a cat.” - Alice in Wonderland).

When Relativity theory separates the speed of light from any frame of reference or simultaneously defined it in multiple frames of reference, the word velocity has no meaning. If any object was moving in space and nothing else existed, the word motion or velocity would be nonsense.

This false assumption is totally unjustified in a math model and impossible for humans to measure in the physical universe. This false assumption is the entire basis for the Special Theory. Without this false assumption the entire theory is invalid.

MATHEMATICAL TIME VS. CLOCKS: Einstein never defined real time, he only discussed mathematical time. Mathematical or isochronal time is an idealistic abstraction in which units, such as minutes, are equal. In reality, no clock can exist which has these characteristics. Also no two clocks can exist which are identical. Any real clock will always either run slower or faster than another clock. In fact, one clock does not even measure identical units itself because like all matter it is continuously changing it‘s molecular structure or aging. (The moving mechanisms of any clock are constantly changing physically.) Einstein’s discussion of both equal units of time and isochronal clocks was totally mathematical and not physical. (Remember, that mathematical deductions cannot be applied to physical objects because the systems are intrinsically different).

An isochronal clock is a mathematical idealization.

A physical clock cannot be isochronal or have equal units of measurement.

A ‘clock’ by definition is a physical mechanism which is used to measure the duration of some physical event. Since all physical measurements are approximations, all clocks can only make approximate measurements. In his theories, Einstein also frequently had the baffling, confusing habit of inserting a physical clock into a mathematical model! If Einstein’s clocks were mathematical, the conclusions don’t apply to reality. If his clocks were physical they can’t be isochronal. Only Houdini could possibly accomplish this magical feat. In the first place, idealized physical clocks don’t even exist, and secondly even if they did exist, they couldn’t be inserted into a mathematical model. With this slight-of-hand trick, Einstein surpassed Houdini.

In this section (2) the false assumption is made about the speed of light, and then the physical characteristics of real objects (rigid rods) are arbitrarily altered to agree with the false assumption. The physical facts are changed to agree with the theory.

3. Theory of the Transformation of Coordinates and Times from a Resting System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former (section title).

Let us in ‘resting’ space take two systems of coordinates, i.e., two systems, each of three RIGID MATERIAL LINES, perpendicular to one another…”. “Let each system be provided with a RIGID MEASURING-ROD and a number of (ISOCHRONAL) CLOCKS, and let the two measuring-rods, and likewise all the clocks of the two systems, be in all aspects IDENTICAL.” (quote from section 3).

MATERIAL LINE is the same metaphysical nonsense as MATERIAL POINT. There is no such thing. This is another example of a mingled model which contains both mathematical characteristics and physical characteristics. This is a sophistical ‘thought experiment’ which cannot exist in reality. No conclusions whatsoever can be made from this mingled, metaphysical model.

There is nothing in this section (3) that is possible in the real Universe. There is no such thing as RIGID MATERIAL LINES, RIGID MEASURING RODS or ISOCHRONAL CLOCKS, which are impossibly identical. The Cartesian coordinate systems are purely mathematical, but the objects are IMPOSSIBLE physical objects.

This is a pseudoscience model that is impossible to deal with either physically or mathematically. This ‘thought experiment’ is a metaphysical model which cannot demonstrate anything. The fallacious conclusions are primarily created by equating the two different relative velocities of light (quantum) and applying math equations to physical objects.

The Lorenz Transformation is a purely mathematical method of solving differential equations by converting them to algebraic equations. This idealized method is completely independent of physical reality. Einstein’s application to physical objects is completely unjustified, unnatural and unscientific.

4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained Concerning Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks (section title).

We consider (i.e. imagine) a RIGID SPHERE (physical) of radius R, at rest relatively to the moving system k, and whose center is at the coordinate origin of k (mathematical).” (quote from section 4).

This is another METAPHYSICAL model which contains a rigid PHYSICAL body in a MATHEMATICAL Cartesian coordinate system. This is another imaginary sophistical “thought experiment”.

This section title is nonsense. There is no such thing as a PHYSICAL meaning of a MATHEMATICAL equation. This section confuses the math and physical models. It confuses the LAWS OF MATHEMATICS with the LAWS OF NATURE and applies the math conclusions to physical objects (which cannot be done because the math models are abstract idealizations) and it also applies the false conclusions from section 2 to rigid bodies (which are not possible in reality. The word rigid has no meaning when referring to atoms and electrons. It is purely a human macroscopic illusion). It also continues to use the impossible isochronal clocks and continues to use the false assumption about the RELATIVE speed of light. In these models, light is defined to be a physical object, not a mathematical abstraction.

5. The Theorem of Addition of Velocities (section title).

This section is based on the mathematical law of the parallelogram of velocities, but applies the erroneous conclusion (transformation equations) from section 3 which falsely equates the speed of light with the RELATIVE speed of light. This results in a false velocity for the moving ‘point’.

The addition of velocities is a mathematical method which produces exact conclusions in the abstract math model. However real physical models don’t have exact measurable constant velocities. All measurements of the velocities of real objects are only approximations and the addition of these approximations are also only approximations. The real speed of light may be constant, but the human measurement of the speed of light is only an approximation. The exact conclusions from the math model cannot be applied to the physical model.

This section (5) is based on the second postulate which fallaciously equates the physical LAWS OF NATURE with the abstract LAWS OF MATHEMATICS.

II. ELECTRODYNAMIC PART

6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Force Occurring in a Magnetic Field During Motion (section title).

This section uses the Lorentz transformation (MATHEMATICAL) in a manner that it was not intended to be used (PHYSICAL). It uses the false conclusions from section 3 together with the second postulate (of the Special Theory). The fallacy of equating the speed of light with the relative speed of light was repeated in this section with the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field can only be associated with the physical objects in physical models. The equations of Maxwell which approximate this physical model are completely mathematical. Like every preceding Relativity model, this is also a METAPHYSICAL MODEL.

It also assumes a misperception about the fundamental nature of electromagnetism. At this time (1905), electromagnetic theory was only beginning to be understood. Einstein failed to have a clear understanding of the relationship between the magnetic field, the electric current and the characteristics and structure of an atom. This misperception was in part due to the generalized Rutherford-Bohr model (about 1913) of the atom. (Which still needs to be replaced.) In 1905, there was no clear conception of nuclear structure. The incompatibility of the Rutherford-Bohr model with the electromagnetic theory, proves that the model is incomplete or completely wrong. A correct nuclear model not only should be compatible with the electromagnetic theory, it should actually explain it.

7. Theory of Doppler’s Principle and of Aberration (section title).

This section is based on the false conclusions of section 3 and 6. It proceeds to establish the mathematical equations and then apply them to electromagnetic waves (physical) and then inserts an observer (human?) with an (isochronal?) clock into the mathematical model at a ‘point‘! Human observers with clocks cannot exist at a ‘point’. This is another ‘thought experiment‘ which has nothing to do with reality. This is also a METAPHYSICAL MODEL from which no conclusions can be applied to reality.

8. Transformations of the Energy of Light Rays. Theory of the Pressure of Radiation Exerted on Perfect Reflectors (section title).

The erroneous conclusions of this section are the result of continually equating the speed of light with the RELATIVE speed of light.

9. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations when Convection-Currents are Taken into Account (section title).

This section is based on the false conclusions of section 5. This section falsely concludes that Lorentz electromagnetic theory agrees with relativity. This is done by falsely equating the speed of light with the RELATIVE speed of light.

10. Dynamics of the (Slowly Accelerated) Electron (section title).

This section creates an impossible (physical?) model which cannot be tested (an electron cannot exist at a ‘point’ and be at a state of rest, and then be slowly accelerated). A (physical) electron cannot be in a (mathematical) Cartesian coordinate system. This is a METAPHYSICAL MODEL. The speed of light and the relative speed of light are still falsely assumed to be equal.

The conclusions of this section are based on the assumption that the previous sections have proven the Theory of Relativity, which they have not.

Most of the problems and objections to the Special Theory arise from a mingling of the math and physics models. This mingling only produces sophistical metaphysics, not good science. This was due to a failure to recognize the fundamental differences between the two types of models. The LAWS OF MATHEMATICS are abstractions and idealizations which only approximate the LAWS OF NATURE. The Special Theory of Relativity confuses these two. This pseudoscience methodology is compounded by the false assumption about the relative speed of light.

SUMMARY - THE PARADOX OF GENERAL MATHEMATICS:

Mathematical models are composed of abstract, idealistic, imaginary characteristics and impossible objects which cannot exist in reality.

Physical models are composed of real physical objects in which all of the characteristics cannot be known or accurately measured.

CONCLUSION: Because of the totally different systems (math and physics) in which these two models are conceived and utilized:

1. The deductive conclusions from the abstract math model cannot be applied to the physical model. To do this, produces the fallacy of analogy abuse. Analogies are used in science to help convey ideas, not to form judgments or inferences.

2. Also because of this difference, the two types of models cannot be mixed or mingled. This only produces metaphysical, sophistical, pseudoscience models which have nothing to do with reality and produce no physical conclusions whatsoever. Metaphors and allegories are literary devices not appropriate in scientific theories.

The failure of the Special Theory of Relativity to produce conclusions which were logically and physically sound, essentially resulted from a repeated failure to recognize this relationship between mathematics and physics. From imaginary sophistical metaphysical models, the Special Theory produces conclusions which are contradictory to reality and contrary to common sense.