ALBERT EINSTEIN UNMAKING THE MYTH, REVISED
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
http://www.geocities.com/christopherjonbjerknes
Copyright© 2000 -2001
By Christopher Jon Bjerknes
All Rights Reserved
DISCLAIMER
This book should not be used as a source book. It undoubtedly contains numerous
errors and is intended only to stimulate interest, not to be used for quotation
or citation. Look up the original material if you wish to read an accurate
rendition. Much of what appears has been redacted and contains errors and
omissions. The author, publisher and supplier assume no liability for the use
or distribution of this book. It is intended for distribution and use in the
USA only.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Priority Myth 3
The Special Theory of Relativity Myth 18
The Two Postulate Myth 57
James Sully 105
Albert A. Michelson 105
Æsop 105
John Locke 105
Isaac Newton 147
G. W. Leibnitz 160
D'Alembert 161
Roger Joseph Boscovich 162
Lagrange 169
Melchior Palágyi 172
George Berkeley 188
David Hume 190
Johann Friedrich Herbart 206
Thomas Reid 210
Sir William Hamilton 216
Edgar Allen Poe 227
J. B. Stallo 227
W. R. Grove 238
William B. Carpenter 238
Lord Kelvin & Peter Guthrie Tait 238
William Kingdon Clifford 239
John Tyndall 239
James Clerk Maxwell 240
J. D. Everett 242
Edward A. Bowser 246
Joseph S. Van Dyke 246
William James 246
Edwin A. Abbott 273
J. C. F. von Schiller 274
Camille Flammarion 275
H. G. Wells 275
Joseph Conrad & Ford Madox Hueffer 277
Ernst Mach 281
Ludwig Lange 295
Simon Newcomb 328
D. Mendeléeff 329
Aurel Anderssohn 330
A. E. Dolbear 331
Henry August Rowland 335
John H. Barr 340
Wilhelm Bölsche 341
Henri Poincaré 342
G. F. FitzGerald 375
Paul Langevin 376
W. Voigt 378
Joseph Larmor 417
H. A. Lorentz 435
I. The Priority Myth
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."--Albert
Einstein
It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory
of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority.1 The historic record is
readily available. Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Jules Henri Poincaré,
and many others slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on
thousands of years of recorded thought and research. Albert may have made a few
contributions to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for the
Doppler-Fizeau Effect,2 though he may also have rendered an incorrect equation
for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected, becomes Lorentz'
equation.3
If Albert Einstein did not originate the major concepts of the special theory
of relativity, how could such a historically significant fact have escaped the
attention of the world for nearly a century? The simple answer is that it did
not.
Some called Albert's priority into question almost immediately. As early as the
years 1905-1907, Planck, Kaufmann, Ehrenfest, Laue, Minkowski, and Albert
Einstein, himself, referred to the Einstein theory as being a mere
interpretation-generalization of Lorentz' theory, which interpretation was
first accomplished by Poincaré and later became known as the "Special Theory of
Relativity". Minkowski4 named Lorentz, Planck and Poincaré, together with
Einstein, as the developers of the principle of relativity,
"H. A. Lorentz has found out the "Relativity theorem" and has created the
Relativity-postulate as a hypothesis that electrons and matter suffer
contractions in consequence of their motion according to a certain law."
and,
"The credit for the development of the general principle [the principle of
relativity] belongs to Einstein, Poincaré and Planck, upon whose works I shall
presently expound."
"Verdienste um die Ausarbeitung des allgemienen Prinzips haben Einstein,
Poincaré und Planck, über deren Arbeiten ich alsbald Näheres sagen werde."
Planck5 and Poincaré attributed the principle of relativity to H. A. Lorentz.
Max von Laue wrote of "the principle of relativity of classical mechanics" and
"the principle of relativity of the Lorentz Transformation".6
Alfred Arthur Robb spoke to the issue in 1914,
"Although generally associated with the names of Einstein and Minkowski, the
really essential physical considerations underlying the theories are due to
Larmor and Lorentz." 7
Charles Nordmann averred, in 1921,
"The only time of which we have any idea apart from all objects is the
psychological time so luminously studied by M. Bergson: a time which has
nothing except the name in common with the time of physicists, of science. It
is really to Henri Poincaré, the great Frenchman whose death has left a void
that will never be filled, that we must accord the merit of having first
proved, with the greatest lucidity and the most prudent audacity, that time and
space, as we know them, can only be relative. A few quotations from his works
will not be out of place. They will show that the credit for most of the things
which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré.
[***] I venture to sum up all this in a sentence which will at first sight seem
a paradox: in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which
create space, the clocks which create time. All this was maintained long before
the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the
discovery to him." 8
Friedrich Kottler, author of Gravitation und Relativitätstheorie in 1903,
revealed on March 31st, 1922, through the prestigious, well-read and
well-respected Encyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 6, 2, 2, p. 171,
note (13),
"H. Poincaré, Palermo Rend. Circ. Math. 21 (1906), p. 129-175, especially p.
175, Formula (14). -- This work of Poincaré's is dated July 23, 1905 and is the
elaboration of a memorandum by the same title in the Parisian C. R. 140 (June
5, 1905), p. 1504-8. The "postulate" of relativity was enunciated here for the
first time, before Einstein."
"H. Poincaré, Palermo Rend. Circ. Math. 21 (1906), p. 129-175, insbes. p. 175,
Formel (14). -- Diese Arbeit Poincarés stammt vom 23. Juli 1905 und ist die
Ausarbeit einer Note gleichen Titels aus den Paris C. R. 140 (5. Juni 1905), p.
1504-8. Hier wurde zum erstenmal, vor Einstein, das ,,Postulat" der Relativität
ausgesprochen. [Emphasis found in the original]"
James Mackaye wrote in 1931,
"Now Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only
he disagrees with his 'interpretation.' Is it not clear, therefore, that in
this, as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's,
the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words only?"
9
Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the Theories of
Aether and Electricity, Vol. II, chapter II, (1953), wrote a chapter entitled
"The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz", and thoroughly documented the
development of the theory, documenting the authentic history, and demonstrably
denying Albert priority for the majority of the theory. Albert offered no
counter-argument to Whittaker's famous book, in which the following passage
appeared,
"Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory of Poincaré
and Lorentz with some amplifications, and which attracted much attention. He
asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of the velocity of light,
i.e. that the velocity of light in vacuo is the same in all systems of
reference which are moving relatively to each other: an assertion which at the
time was widely accepted, but has been severally criticized by later writers."
10
Whittaker wrote a realistic biography of Albert, in Biographical Memoirs of
Fellows of the Royal Society, N°. 1, (1955), pages 37-67, which reiterated the
truth, that Albert did not create the theory of relativity.
Even among Albert's admirers, voices are heard, which deny Albert's priority.
Max Born averred that,
"[Methuen & co. Ltd's Ed.] Lorentz enunciated the laws according to which the
measured quantities in various systems may be transformed into each other, and
he proved that these transformations leave the field equations of the electron
theory unchanged. This is the mathematical content of his discovery. Larmor
(1900) and Poincaré (1905) arrived at similar results about the same time. It
is interesting historically that the formula of transformation to a moving
system, which we nowadays call Lorentz' transformation (see vi, 2, p. 200
formula (72)), were set up by Voigt as early as 1877 [sic] in a dissertation
which was still founded on the elastic theory of light. [***] In the new theory
of Lorentz the principle of relativity holds, in conformity with the results of
experiment, for all electrodynamic events."
"[Dover's revised Ed.] As mentioned already, Lorentz and Poincaré have
succeeded in doing this by careful analysis of the properties of Maxwell's
equations. They were indeed in possession of a great deal of mathematical
theory. Lorentz, however, was so attached to his assumption of an ether
absolutely at rest that he did not acknowledge the physical significance of the
equivalence of the infinite numbers of systems of reference which he had
proved. He continued to believe that one of them represented the ether at rest.
Poincaré went a step further. It was quite clear to him that Lorentz's
viewpoint was not tenable and that the mathematical equivalence of systems of
reference meant the validity of the principle of relativity. He also was quite
clear about the consequences of his theory." 11
and,
"I have now to say some words about the work of these predecessors of Einstein,
mainly of Lorentz and Poincaré. [***] H. A. Lorentz' important papers of 1892
and 1895 on the electrodynamics of moving bodies contain much of the formalism
of relativity. [***] Poincaré's papers [***] show that as early as 1899 he
regarded it as very probable that absolute motion is indetectable in principle
and that no ether exists. He formulated the same ideas in a more precise form,
though without any mathematics, in a lecture given in 1904 to a Congress of
Arts and Science at St. Louis, U.S.A., and he predicted the rise of a new
mechanics which will be characterized above all by the rule, that no velocity
can exceed the velocity of light. [***] The reasoning used by Poincaré was just
the same as that which Einstein introduced in his first paper of 1905 [***]
Does this mean that Poincaré knew all this before Einstein? It is possible
[***] Many of you have looked upon [Albert's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik
bewegter Körper' in Annalen der Physik (4), vol. 17, p. 811, 1905, and you will
have noticed some peculiarities. The striking point is that it contains not a
single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a
new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true." 12
Peter Gabriel Bergmann asserted,
"The Dutch physicist, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853-1928) contrived a
theoretical scheme according to which absolute motion of physical objects,
including measuring rods, should compress them in such a manner that
differences in the speed of light remained undetectable by any conceivable
apparatus. Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), the French mathematician,
suggested that the consistent failure to identify the frame representing
absolute rest indicated that no such frame existed, and that Newton's scheme of
the multiplicity of inertial frames was valid after all. In 1905, Einstein
combined Lorentz' and Poincaré's ideas into a new approach to the issue of
frames of reference and so was able to explain why no experiment had uncovered
the absolute motion of the earth, without contradicting Maxwell's theory of
electricity and magnetism."13
Bergmann fails to acknowledge that the 1905 paper failed to present references
to the work it "combined" of Lorentz and Poincaré, and the minor importance of
that which was "new" in the "approach". He also fails to convey the significant
fact that Poincaré's work was itself the combination of Lorentz' and Poincaré's
ideas, which "combination" Albert did not create, but simply repeated,
virtually verbatim.
G. H. Keswani argued that,
"As far back as 1895, Poincaré the innovator had conjectured that it is
impossible to detect absolute motion. In 1900 he introduced the 'The principle
of relative motion' which he later called by the equivalent terms 'The law of
relativity' and 'The principle of relativity' in his book Science and
Hypothesis published in 1902. He further asserted in this book that there is no
absolute time and that we have no intuition of the 'simultaneity' of two
'events' (mark the words) occurring at different places. In a lecture given in
1904, Poincaré reiterated the principle of relativity, described the method of
synchronisation of clocks with light signals, urged a more satisfactory theory
of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Lorentz's ideas and predicted
a new mechanics characterized by the rule that the velocity of light cannot be
surpassed. This was followed in June 1905 by a mathematical paper entitled 'Sur
la dynamique de l'électron' in which the connection between relativity
(impossibility of absolute motion) and the Lorentz Transformation given by
Lorentz a year earlier was recognized. In point of fact, therefore, Poincaré
was not only the first to enunciate the principle, but he also discovered in
Lorentz's work the necessary mathematical formulation of the principle. All
this happened before Einstein's paper appeared." 14
Albert, himself, wrote,
"This rigid four-dimensional space of the special theory of relativity is to
some extent a four-dimensional analogue of H. A. Lorentz's rigid
three-dimensional æther." 15
and,
"I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of
the Lorentzian ether, through relativation." 16
Poincaré provided the "four-dimensional analogue"17 and relativized the
"Lorentzian ether" long before Minkowski or Albert. In fact, Minkowski was well
aware of Poincaré's earlier work, before Minkowski presented his four
dimensional interpretation.18 Albert, together with Jakob Laub, denounced
Minkowski's four dimensional interpretation of the Lorentzian ether, in 1908.19
Many people knew that Albert did not hold priority for much of what he wrote.
He, himself, was keenly aware of it. It is not uncommon for grandiose myths to
accrue to overly idealized popular figures, such as Albert Einstein.
Albert did not invent the atomic bomb. In fact, he was ignorant of the concept,
and the concept of the bomb had to be explained to him before he could write to
President Roosevelt urging him to instigate what would become the Manhattan
Project.20 One may wonder, did Albert frequently became the political toy of
others? Albert did not usher in the atomic age,21 nor was he the first to state
the mass-energy equivalence, or E = mc2. Myths such as Albert's supposed
discoveries are not uncommon. For example, few in his time knew that President
Roosevelt was severely handicapped, being limited to a wheel chair, and the
press cooperated in keeping Roosevelt's disability a secret. Is it difficult to
believe that this same press presented Albert Einstein as a super-hero of
science, when he was, in fact, less than that, perhaps much less? It was a good
story for them to sell.
Consider briefly the mass-energy equivalence. Huygens and Leibnitz presented
the quantity of motion, energy, E = mv2, as opposed to the
Aristotelian-Cartesian-Newtonian quantity of motion, momentum, = mv. This
mathematical identity, E = mv2, is the mass-energy equivalence. S. Tolver
Preston formulated atomic energy, the atomic bomb and superconductivity back in
the 1870's, based on the formula E = mc2, where celeritas signifies the speed
of light.22 Maxwell's equations implicitly contain the formula E = mc2. Simon
Newcomb pioneered the concept of relativistic energy in 1889.23 G. N. Lewis
gave us relativistic mass in 1908.24 Thomson, Poincaré, Olinto De Pretto, Fritz
Hasenöhrl, Bucherer, [etc. etc. etc.] presented E = mc2 before 1905.
Alexander Bain expressly stated in 1870 that,
"matter, force, and inertia, are three names for substantially the same fact"
and
"force and matter are not two things, but one thing"
and
"force, inertia, momentum, matter, are all but one fact".25
Thomson defined the inertia of his vortex atom based on its energy content. A.
E. Dolbear wrote in this context that,
"Hence, inertia, too, must be looked upon as probably due to motion"
and
"It is not simply an amount of material, but the energy the material has, which
gives it its characteristic properties." 26
Boscovich claimed that inertia is a relative quantity and is not absolute.27
These same concepts are to be found in Aristotle and Heraclitus.
How has the history become so corrupted as to ignore the above stated facts?
Historians all too often look to the conclusions of previous historians, rather
than to the historic record itself. For example, the British, who initially
denied the existence of the æther,28 and attributed that denial to Newton,
later posthumously awarded Newton credit for the very discovery of the æther.29
Newton did not deny the æther, nor did he discover it, but once the historians
drew one conclusion or the other, the myths became entrenched and were
exploited for political gain by both sides of the debate over the existence of
the æther, as the cyclical changes in dogma played out over the intervening
centuries. Newton sought an explanation for gravity by means of the æther as an
intervening medium, but modern histories perpetuate the myth that Newton viewed
gravity as an innate force of inert matter.
Once the history is corrupted, people begin to see in the words of their
ancestors images which are not there, much like the optical illusion of an
image of two faces, which image also depicts a vase. If told to describe the
picture of the vase, before being shown the image, a person will see a vase in
the picture. If told to describe the two faces, before being presented the
picture, a person will see in it two faces. If taught that Newton denied the
existence of the æther, a person will believe those historians who record that
Newton denied the æther, and may even see in his writings the proof. If taught
that Newton discovered the existence of the æther, a person will believe those
historians who record that Newton discovered the æther, and may even see in his
writings the proof. This is all the more true, for Isaac, like Albert, was
reluctant to disclose that his thoughts were largely unoriginal, and the
undisciplined historian, who will often not find the pertinent citations in
Newton's work itself, may look no further.
Historians record their impressions and not history itself. They are
politically motivated. Later historians all too often record the works of
earlier historians, and the truth is lost in the process. This is a
double-edged sword, which cuts both ways.
Many who are aware that Albert was not an original thinker wrongfully attribute
the special theory of relativity to Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, often believing
that Minkowski first set in cement the notion of the uniform translation of
space. Many worship Hendrik Antoon as a hero, just as many worship Albert as a
hero. However, Lorentz and Minkowski deserve little more credit than does
Albert Einstein.
The real "credit" for the relativistic notions of space and time substantially
belongs to Boscovich, Lange, Voigt, FitzGerald, Hertz, Larmor, Poincaré, Cohn30
and Laub, who are, with the possible exceptions of FitzGerald and Poincaré,
almost never cited in the popular literature as originators of the theory.
The so-called "Lorentz Transformation" is by no means proprietary to Lorentz.
The much touted modern "Principle of Relativity"--the belief that absolute
space is, in principle, undetectable--was nothing more than one very common
interpretation of the negative result of Michelson's experiment, though not the
conclusion Michelson himself reached. He believed his experiment discredited
the then standard explanation of aberration via a resting æther. Michelson
turned to Stoke's theory of aberration and a "dragged æther" to explain the
negative result of his experiments.31
***
The events which led to Albert's rise to fame are a fascinating story of hero
worship and historic revisionism. The ongoing disclosure of documents related
to Albert's life raise many new questions. Was the man we are led to envision,
with the Mark Twain persona and charisma, in fact a stumbling, sadistic brute,
who wrested his fame from his wife Mileva's misery? 32
In 1905, several articles bearing the name of Albert Einstein appeared in a
German physics journal, Annalen der Physik. The most fateful among these, was a
paper entitled Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper; von A. Einstein, Albert's
supposedly breakthrough paper on the 'principle of relativity'. Though it was
perhaps submitted as coauthored by Mileva Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein,
or solely by Mileva Einstein-Marity, Albert's name appeared in the journal as
the exclusive author of their work.33
Abraham F. Joffe
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
is a variant of the Serbian "Mari", Mileva's maiden name. Joffe, who had seen
the original 1905 manuscript is on record as stating,
"For Physics, and especially for the Physics of my generation, that of
Einstein's contemporaries, Einstein's entrance into the arena of science is
unforgettable. In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik',
which began three very important branches of 20th Century Physics. Those were
the theory of Brownian movement, the theory of the photoelectric effect and the
theory of relativity. The author of these articles, who was an unknown at the
time, was a clerk at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity is the
maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family
name)."
" , -- , . 1905 . « » , . : , . -- - ( -- , )." 34
Desanka Trbuhovi-Gjuri's interpretation of the facts are found in her book, Im
Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Mari, in
which she discusses Mileva's role in creating the special theory of relativity,
and states, inter alia,
"The distinguished Russian physicist [***] Abraham F. Joffe (1880-1960),
pointed out in his 'In Remembrance of Albert Einstein', that Einstein's three
epochal articles in Volume 17 of "Annalen der Physik" of 1905 were originally
signed "Einstein-Mari". Joffe had seen the originals as assistant to Röntgen,
who belonged to the Board of the "Annalen", which had examined submitted
contributions for editorial purposes. Röntgen showed his summa cum laude
student this work, and Joffe thereby came face to face with the manuscripts,
which are no longer available today."
"Der hervorragende russische Physiker [***] Abraham F. Joffe (1880-1960),
machte in seinen «Erinnerung an Albert Einstein» darauf aufmerksam, dass die
drei epochemachenden Artikel Einsteins im Band XVII der «Annalen der Physik»
von 1905 im Original mit «Einstein-Mari» gezeichnet waren. Joffe hatte die
Originale als Assistent von Röntgen gesehen, der dem Kuratorium der «Annalen»
angehörte, das die bei der Redaktion eingereichten Beiträge zu begutachten
hatte. Zu dieser Arbeit zog Röntgen seinen summa cum laude-Schüler Joffe bei,
der auf diese Weise die heute nicht mehr greifbaren Manuskripte zu Gesicht
bekam." 35
If "Einstein-Marity" refers to a sole person, that person is Mileva Mari, not
Albert Einstein.
Joffe was no bumbling fool. He knew full well that his statement would be
noticed. Though Joffe's statement superficially indicates that it was Albert
who went by the name of "Einstein-Marity", such a claim, and the parenthetical
explanation it compelled, were extraordinary! Joffe was probably, as
imperceptibly as his conscience would allow, disclosing to the world that
Albert was not the author, or, at least, not the sole author, of the works in
question. Joffe's statements appeared fifty years after he had read the 1905
papers. It stuck with him all those many years that the papers were indelibly
signed "Einstein-Marity". How could Joffe have known that Mileva Mari went by
the name of Einstein-Marity, if the name had not appeared on the 1905 papers?
There is no Swiss custom by which the husband automatically adds his wife's
maiden name to his, and even if there were, neither Albert nor Mileva were
Swiss. Albert Einstein never signed his name "Einstein-Marity". Swiss law
permits the male, the female, or both, to use a double last name, but this must
be declared before the marriage, and it was Mileva, not Albert, who opted for
the last name "Einstein-Marity". A married person may use the hyphenated
"Allianzname" in everyday use, but it was Mileva who went by "Einstein-Marity",
not Albert. Albert signed his marriage records simply "Einstein". Mileva's
death notice reads "Einstein-Marity". If Albert had gone by the name of
"Einstein-Marity", it would have appeared in many places, and it does not. It
was perhaps subtly amusing to Joffe to point out that it was unknown that
Albert's wife had written, or coauthored, the Annalen papers. There is
apparently no other plausible reason for Joffe to have made this allusion, nor
is there any plausible explanation as to how he came to know the name
"Einstein-Marity", other than his having read it in 1905.
Did Mileva loose her nerve in the end and ask not to be named as the author of
the unoriginal works? Were the works submitted as coauthored works, but the
couple was persuaded that it would be better to have a male name in print? Was
there a printing error? Why, after fifty years, would Joffe come out with the
disclosure that the papers were submitted by "Einstein-Marity"? Why did that
fact nag him for fifty years, and why did he feel compelled to publicly express
it, after Albert Einstein had died?
In 1905, Albert was working as a patent clerk. He was unable to perform the
mathematical work the job entailed and required the aid of an assistant, who
performed the mathematical work for him. Albert confessed to Abraham Pais, "I
am not a mathematician." 36 While still a child, Albert's parents suspected
that he was mentally retarded.37 We have direct evidence from Albert's own pen
that the work on relativity theory was a collaboration between Mileva and him,
"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our
work on relative motion to an end!"
"Wie glücklich und stolz werde ich sein, wenn wir beide zusammen unsere Arbeit
über die Relativbewegung siegreich zu Ende geführt haben!" 38
Albert may have lacked the mathematical skills and intellectual abilities to
have written the 1905 paper alone. On the other hand, Mileva, his first wife,
was exceptionally bright, and all indications are that those who knew her
throughout her life found her the more intelligent of the pair. She probably
had the needed intellectual prowess to have written the 1905 paper on the
principle of relativity. Given the many blunders in the paper, it is safe to
assume that neither one of them was a superlative mathematician. It also
appears that publication of the paper may have been rushed.
Mileva and Albert had coauthored papers before39 and Albert had assumed credit
for what Mileva alone had accomplished.40 Albert would often simply agree with
whomever he had last spoken,41 and it is within the realm of possibilities that
he was in some sense a mere parrot. Upon meeting with colleagues, he would
often grill them for information on their theories, seemingly soaking it all
in, perhaps to repeat it later as his own.
Certain anecdotal accounts paint Albert in a bad light. Upon refusing to brush
his teeth, Albert allegedly proclaimed that, "pigs' bristles can drill through
diamond, so how should my teeth stand up to them?" 42 Explaining why he didn't
wear a hat in the rain, he asserted that hair dries faster than hats, and
irritably asserted that such was obvious. It apparently eluded him that the
objective was, in the first place, to keep the hair dry. Explaining why he
didn't wear socks, Albert commented, "When I was young I found out that the big
toe always ends up by making a hole in the sock. So I stopped wearing socks" 43
and "What use are socks? They only produce holes." 44 He also wasn't too handy
around the house, and seemingly had a difficult time conceptualizing geometric
problems.45 He insisted that two holes be bored through his front door, one
larger than the other, so that both the large cat, and the small cat, could
pass through the door.
After meeting Albert, Max von Laue found it difficult to believe that Albert
had written the 1905 paper, "Ich tat das auch, aber der junge Mann, der mir
entgegen kam, machte mir einen so unerwarteten Eindruck, daß ich nicht glaubte,
er könne der Vater der Relativitätstheorie sein." 46 Minkowski, who had been
Albert's professor, found it difficult to believe that Albert had written the
1905 paper. Minkowski didn't think Albert capable of it.
Charles Nordmann, who chauffeured the Nobel Prize holding Albert around France,
sarcastically described him as a vacant-eyed, simian clod.47 Nordmann
sarcastically ranked him with Newton, Des Cartes or Henri Poincaré.48 Like
Rabelais and Voltaire before him, Nordmann lavished sarcastic praise on the new
hero and derided him in ways which would elude the unsophisticated, but which
were clear to those knowledgeable of the facts. Nordmann was careful not to be
too blunt, for he wished to advocate the theory of relativity, and it was
politically expedient for him to ride on Albert's coat tails, but Nordmann
never failed to get his digs in.
In Germany, one hundred scientists rallied against relativity theory and
published Ein Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein. Ernst Gehrcke asserted that
Albert's rise to fame was a "mass suggestion" fed by the press, who would
frequently misrepresent the facts, and misrepresented the views of many leading
authorities, who were in reality mostly opposed to relativity theory. Gehrcke
seemingly decided to fight propaganda with thoroughly documented fact, but came
up on the losing side. Albert's smile was perhaps too endearing to be
successfully countered by the facts.49
Is there any evidence that Albert wrote unoriginal works as a pattern?
By 1905, before the appearance of his first paper on "special relativity",
Albert Einstein had already demonstrated a knack for repeating the work of
others, as though he had somehow thought of it independently, later, and
nevertheless deserved credit for his supposedly independent inspiration.50 His
early papers were thoroughly unoriginal, and it is within the realm of
possibilities that he may have derived them from the works of Gibbs and
Boltzmann (the relevant works will be addressed in another volume of this
series), without giving them their due credit. Albert's writings would often
repeat, virtually verbatim, the writings of others, but Albert's papers were
often virtually devoid of footnotes. The 1905 paper on relativity wanted for a
single reference.
Is it possible that Albert could have simply copied the then famous papers of
scientists? Could Albert have acted like a teenager, who opens an encyclopedia
article, changes a few words and copies the rest, then submits the finished
forgery as his own term paper?
Perhaps, the question is moot. The priorities, however, are clear. The repeated
occurrences of the repetition evince a pattern, though, perhaps, some might
argue, a coincidental pattern. In any event, the credit belongs to those who
published first, and Albert was rarely, if ever, amongst them.
Was it Albert who was fitting the formulæ others had published before him into
a new dress to call his own, or was it his brilliant wife, Mileva? In my
opinion, and this is certainly a debatable question, and my opinion is not a
fact, Albert's supposed genius seems to have diminished after his divorce from
Mileva in 1919. Why would that be so? He died in 1955, and produced nothing
extraordinarily significant after his divorce, in my opinion, and other
authorities would almost certainly contest this opinion, though many who were
closest to Albert have agreed. This is a subjective question.
After winning the Nobel Prize (expressly not for relativity theory, by the way,
but for an unoriginal paper of relatively minor importance) in 1922, Albert
paid his former wife the money which he had won in the prize, but why?
Why pay Mileva the winnings? Was Albert overly generous in the support of his
family? Many accounts indicate that he was not.
Why did the Nobel committee not award Albert the Nobel Prize for his work on
relativity theory? Could it have been that all who were familiar with the
facts, knew that Albert did not originate the major concepts behind relativity
theory? It is supposedly unclear, but many parts of the puzzle present an image
of political motivation, and not merit, being the impetus behind Albert's
award.
Some ten years prior, Wilhelm Wien had recommended that the Nobel Prize be
given to both Lorentz and Albert Einstein in 1912, on the grounds that,
"One should [***] assess the merits of both investigators as being comparable."
However, Albert's half of the pie by all rights belonged to Poincaré, who died
in 1912, and it would have been in exceedingly bad taste to exploit his death
to award the Nobel Prize to Albert.
Ernst Gehrcke demonstrated that P. Gerber had anticipated the general theory of
relativity, making a Nobel Prize for that theory impossible. Wien, in
recommending Lorentz and Albert for the special theory, effectively disclosed
that Albert held no priority for it, as everyone knew that Poincaré stated the
principle of relativity long before Albert. It is clear that the Nobel
committee simply manufactured an excuse to award the then celebrity, Albert
Einstein, and in some minds traitor to the German cause in World War I, a
prize, merely mentioning the photo-electric effect, for which Albert held no
priority, as a possible excuse, which white lie apparently offended few.
Could the monies Albert paid Mileva have been 'hush money'? Though the payment
was made pursuant to a divorce agreement, would not a divorce agreement
typically stipulate that the male was indebted to the female and must pay her,
regardless of the means by which the money was obtained? Mileva had children to
feed, Albert's children. When the divorce agreement was reached, it was far
from certain that Albert would ever win the Nobel Prize. Why would Mileva roll
the dice with the future of her children?
Why would they reach an agreement which stipulated that the monies be paid if
and only if Albert might someday win the Nobel Prize? It was far from certain
that Albert would ever win the Nobel Prize. Could the agreement have related
not to the responsibilities of marriage, but to potential monetary gain derived
from Mileva's efforts? Is it possible that if it were Mileva's work, and that
work paid off, Albert would pay her off, and then only to keep her silent? It
seems an extraordinary proposition. Could it have been Mileva's way of saying,
"Hey, if you ever get any serious money out of my work, I deserve the money,
because it was my work!"
Mileva once hinted to Albert that she was contemplating publishing her memoirs,
Albert told her to keep her mouth shut, and may have intimated that he, an
innocent idiot, would suffer less than she, the incorrigible plagiarist. That
is but one of many plausible interpretations of Albert's words.51
Why didn't Mileva come forward with the fact that she was the one who had
written the work, if in fact she had? Did Albert buy Mileva's silence? Even if
he had, was there more to hold Mileva back from exposing Albert, than the
desperate need for monies?
Hypothetically speaking, would Albert have been able to prove to the world that
the theory was not completely original when Annalen der Physik first published
the 1905 paper, if Mileva herself had merely condensed the works of Lange,
Voigt, Hertz, FitzGerald, Larmor, Cohn, Langevin, Lorentz and Poincaré? If so,
what would Mileva have stood to gain by revealing that Albert had taken credit
for her work, when she herself had merely repeated what others had already
published?
Would it then have been the case that neither of the Einsteins, not Albert, not
Mileva, "thought God thought's", as popular myth now holds? Might they have
read scientists' papers and books, rewrote them, and attached Albert's name to
what was not his? Is such a thing possible? Did Albert demonstrably repeat,
again and again, what others had published before him, mirroring their words in
virtually identical form?
Did it ever happen to Albert, that someone would repeat what he had earlier
published, and then claimed priority for thoughts which Albert had first
published? Would Albert have tolerated such misbehavior? He was aggressive in
response to challenges to his priority. Albert stated that it is wrong not to
give credit where credit is due,
"That, alas, is vanity. You find it in so many scientists. You know, it has
always hurt me to think that Galileo did not acknowledge the work of Kepler."
52
If one thief steals from another thief, then offers to split the purse, what
option does either thief have, but to keep silent and spend the money? What
might have happened, if, hypothetically speaking, Mileva knew that she had
written the work for which Albert took credit? What if, hypothetically
speaking, Albert knew that Mileva had copied the ideas, examples, explanations,
equations and phrases, from Lange, Voigt, Hertz, FitzGerald, Larmor, Cohn,
Langevin, Lorentz and Poincaré? In such a hypothetical scenario, what could
Mileva have done? What would have been in her self-interest?
Did Mileva begin hoping that Albert would rise to fame and she would lead a
charmed life with her famous husband? Her words might indicate that she did.
Serbian women had little chance at fame in those days, other than as ornaments
attached to their husbands' arms. Tesla, a Serb born in Croatia, was unfairly
treated in the West. What chance did Mileva stand? Albert brutalized her. Her
self-confidence may been destroyed.
Albert once demanded in writing that Mileva obey his cruel and degrading
orders, in a letter which can only be described as shocking and revolting.53
Is it possible that Mileva may have believed that her only hope for fame and
fortune was to build up Albert and use him for her ends? Did Albert have strong
morals? Under such hypothetical conditions, would Albert have been fit for the
role as cohort to plagiarism, if plagiarism were ever to occur? He may have
been incontinent, perhaps even an incestuous adulterer.54 He was perhaps even a
foul-mouthed,55 syphilitic whore monger.56 Did Albert have no choice but to
copy what others had published before him, if indeed he actually ever did? Was
he of sub-average intelligence? 57 Given that this issue is controversial, I'll
give Albert the benefit of the doubt and regard the 1905 paper as a coauthored
work.
From whence came Albert's idealistic politics? If his claims to priority in
physics were phoney, were his politics then as phoney as his claims to priority
in physics? One can only speculate. He repeated much of what H. G. Wells had
accomplished, both in physics and politics. Wells holds priority on the concept
of four-dimensional space-time, the atomic bomb, and many other innovations of
thought. Poincaré and Minkowski also addressed some of these topics, but
somehow, they are today associated almost exclusively with Albert's last name.
I do not mean to belittle much of what Albert said in terms of politics, but
find it within the realm of possibilities that he may have merely parroted, and
been a spokesperson for, the thoughts of others, some of which were quite noble
aspirations. Of course, it may have been purely coincidental that he restated
the words of others, usually the same others in the same context.
Even some of Albert's quaint anecdotes have their prior cousins. He told a
story of his supposed fantasy of traveling at light speed,58 the so-called
"Aarau Question". However, this fantasy was the subject of a novel popular
among physicists of his day written by a famous astronomer, Lumen, by Camille
Flammarion. Lumen was first published many decades before Albert claimed credit
for the story and discusses not only travel at luminal and superluminal
velocities, but the complete relativity of time and space, and the use of light
speed as a measurement of relative distance, time and simultaneity! This
appears repeatedly in the Nineteenth Century as a French conception, inspired
by Fizeau and Flammarion, furthered by Bergson in his Time and Free Will, an
Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness, and brought to fruition in
Poincaré's The Measurement of Time, and, Science and Hypothesis, and his 1904
St. Louis lecture, The Principles of Mathematical Physics. However, it was the
Croation Jesuit Boscovich who had the profoundest, and prior, insight regarding
relative simultaneity.59
The equating of light speed to length and time was placed in the consciousness
of physicists by Roemer, whose calculations of light's finite speed underpin
the definition of simultaneity in modern physics. Fizeau defined space as
isotropic with regards to light speed and assumed that:
c = ( 2AB ) ÷ ( t'A - tA ),
where c = celeritas, the wave speed of light, AB is the length of the path of
light from point A to point B, and ( t'A - tA ) is the time interval of the
round trip path of reflected light from A to B and back to A.
Fizeau thereby presented a new circular definition of time. Poincaré
demonstrated that this new circular definition of time rendered simultaneity
relative, and that the presumption of a one way light speed was the presumption
of a measurement of time. Time was previously defined by the circular
definition of uniform motion supplied by Galileo, where equal spaces are
defined to be traversed in equal times.
In Albert's famous lecture of 1922 in Japan,60 he recounts that he derived
inspiration from "Michelson's experiment". Then, years later, Albert denied
having known of the experiment before the 1905 paper appeared.61
Albert supposedly arose from bed once and wondered if events were absolutely
simultaneous.62 Was Albert reading Poincaré, who had expressly written that
events are not absolutely simultaneous, in bed before Albert fell asleep?
Albert also told a Eureka-like story of his enlightenment of the special theory
of relativity--a story which is suspiciously similar to Archimedes' story.63
Albert may have been a phoney. He may not have been a phoney. The question of
priority is one which can be settled based on the historic record. The question
of inspiration is perhaps more obscure. To some, the answer may appear obvious.
When his fame increased, Albert divorced Mileva, and entered into an incestuous
marriage with his cousin (with whom he was a blood relative through both his
mother and his father 64 ), though Albert may have felt that he had the option
to choose between a marriage with his cousin, or one of her young daughters. He
once referred to his wife-cousin and her two daughters, as his "small harem".65
Do the facts present Albert as a perverse being, sadistically cruel to his
family? If they were to, should it be considered the benefit of his genius, and
a sacrifice he made for the good of mankind? Would it be an indication that the
popular image of the man is a myth? Might there be other myths, or truths,
which have been covered up?
Albert told the general public that only twelve men in the world were capable
of understanding the theory of relativity.66 After that proclamation, any
person who dared contest Albert's priority was susceptible to being labeled as
outside the 12 and incapable of understanding the theory.
There is often a striking similarity between Lorentz and Poincaré's writings
and Albert's words in both the "special" and "general" theories of relativity.
Who published what, first? Was it mere coincidence that time after time, Albert
repeated what Poincaré had earlier published? The record indicates that
Poincaré held priority, often by many years, over Albert. Why is it that
Albert's last name is a household word and is synonymous with "relativity", and
Poincaré's name is substantially more obscure? Albert believed,
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." 67
The mathematical transformations in relativity theory are called "Lorentz
Transformations",68 an appellation supplied by Poincaré.69 The record indicates
that Voigt,70 FitzGerald, Larmor, Poincaré and Lorentz began developing the
mathematical expressions of the theory of relativity some 18 years before
Albert, and completed them before Albert published on the subject. Boscovich
spoke of length contraction, time dilatation, relative simultaneity, and the
"Principle of Invariance" resulting from these, back in the 1700's. Poincaré
frequently iterated his 'principle of relativity' long before Albert repeated
the same principle. Everett, Lange and Rowland had expressed it by 1900,
Everett and Lange, some time before even Poincaré. Why is the concept popularly
referred to as 'Einstein's theory of relativity'? Are the popular
misconceptions and the historic record at odds?
When it was pointed out that Albert repeated what others had written far
earlier, some regarded it as an amazing coincidence that someone had mistakenly
written what Albert would later discover! For instance,
"[Boscovich's] theory also suggests curious--almost uncanny--intimations of
general relativity and quantum mechanics." 71
The lack of footnotes in Albert's writings was not seen as an attempt at
plagiarism, but as evidence that Albert conceived the soup from scratch, even
though the record proves that the principle of relativity via the "Lorentz
Transformation" was a traditional, well-known recipe. The absurdity of assuming
that a lack of footnotes indicates the absence of a knowledge of anothers works
degenerates into mysticism, and we are asked to accept that Albert did not read
what was famously in print in his pet field, but was inspired "if not [by] God,
[then by] some otherworldly source".72
For the first originators (a redundancy compelled by the subject matter) of
relativity theory, the development was slow, progressive and well documented.
It was an evolution, not a holy revelation.
Of course, the indoctrinated habit of scientists is to research the scientific
literature before developing a theory. Why wouldn't Albert have done so? The
history of science was, after all, Albert's passion.
Could Albert have researched the literature on the electrodynamics of moving
bodies, the relative motion of bodies and the failure to detect the motion of
the Earth relative to the æther and missed the relevant works of Michelson,
Larmor, Cohn, Langevin, Poincaré and Lorentz? Did God really tap Albert on the
shoulder and whisper these mens thoughts to Albert, but didn't let Albert in on
the poorly kept secret that these men had already published "God's thoughts"?
Albert is known to have read Poincaré 73, and was aware of Lorentz' work, but
denied knowledge of the so-called "Lorentz Transformation". Is it plausible to
believe that Albert, a supposed genius and master scientist, was completely
unaware of Poincaré's, Lorentz' and Larmor's works containing the so-called
"Lorentz Transformation", and the principle of relativity, which were the talk
of the physics community,74 and the then current literature on the subject of
Poincaré's 'principle of relativity' and that it is coincidental that Albert
repeated much of what they wrote? Is it a coincidence that Albert repeated the
same formulæ, in the same context, based on the same explanations, and
experiments? Is it a coincidence that the relativity well largely ran dry after
Poincaré's untimely death?
Why did Albert's supposed genius appear only after his marriage to Mileva, and
why did he not accomplish major breakthroughs, on the level of the special and
general theories of relativity, after he divorced her? David Hilbert published
the general theory of relativity before Albert.75 Why, after many years of
failure, did Albert suddenly realize, within a few days after David Hilbert's
work was public, the equations which Hilbert published before him, and then
submit his, Albert's, formulations?
Should we believe that Albert came up with the same equations independently of
Hilbert, after Albert's long and tortuous, fruitless years of struggling in
vain, after begging Hilbert for help, within days of Hilbert's public release?
Who was the better mathematician of the two? Who presented the theory first?
Who had the better understanding of the principle of least action?76 Who went
calling on whom for help, after years of failure?
Which one of the two had evinced a pattern of repeating the work of others,
supposedly independently, later, again and again? What was Poincaré's
contribution to the general theory of relativity, was it not in large part his
conception? And what of Neumann, Mach, Mie, FitzGerald, Clifford, Seeliger,
Gerber,77 Soldner78, Oppenheim, Kottler (father of the "Relativitätstheorie" in
1903), de Sitter or Klein? What, exactly, did Albert contribute to the theory?
Where, in the historic record, do we find Albert's contribution with
established priority? Is the priority Albert's, merely because he claimed it,
in spite of the dates of publication?
Why did Albert submit a nonsensical paper after the divorce, which confused
renowned scientists? Was he not a great, independent thinker? Is it possible,
hypothetically speaking, that Albert wasn't a genius and became so full of
himself that he attempted to go it alone, and failed miserably?
Of course, the "great man", as he once called himself,79 was never short of
material to steal, should he ever choose to plagiarize. People from around the
world wrote to him with their ideas.80 If he were a plagiarist, then the thief
would have held the keys to the vault!
Albert evinced a career long pattern of publishing "novel" theories and formulæ
after others had already published similar words, then claimed priority for
himself. He did it with E = mc2.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
did it with the general theory of relativity. Did Albert simply change the
names for terms, and claim he created a new theory, as if Albert called red,
"blue", and claimed to have discovered a new color? Did Albert build a career
out of hype and plagiarism? Is there a test to determine when a pattern evolves
which defies the laws of probability? Without objective proof, the
possibilities perhaps remain subjective and unprovable. It would depend, in
large part, on the standard of proof which is employed in coming to judgement.
However, the priorities remain clear.
Was Albert an honest man? Did he state that he had never read the
Michelson-Morley report? Had he read it? Did Albert state that he had never
read Poincaré's paper on the dynamics of the electron? Had he read it? Was his
memory faulty? Was he easily confused? Was he a liar?
Did Albert become a hero to many and in their minds a demi-god, seemingly the
Holy Ghost incarnate, communicating God's thoughts to man? Did the scientific
community and the media promote Albert as the genius who figured it all out? Do
we need such heroes? Would the scientific community have had a self-interest in
promoting Albert as a superior person, with the implication being that
scientists in general are superior people? Are scientists in general superior
people? Albert is seemingly awarded credit for every scientific advancement and
theory from the time of Newton up until Albert's death. Does Albert deserve
that credit? What effect did World War I have on the politics which rocketed
Albert to fame?
The book you now hold before you is an effort to correct some of the
inaccuracies and popular misconceptions regarding the special theory of
relativity, as it has come to be called, and to present you, the reader, with
documented fact, the dusty old words of the authentic authors--ghosts restless
to be recognized. You will find in the pages which follow quotations from
primary sources, all of which appeared in print, in public, before the
Einsteins published their paper on the principle of relativity in 1905.
NOTES:
1. Sir Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity,
Vol. II, Philosophical Library Inc., New York, (1954), pp. 27-77.
See also, G. H. Keswani, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,
(1965), 15, 60, pp. 286-306; 16, 61, pp.19-32.
2. M. Einstein-Marity and A. Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,
Annalen der Physik, 17, (1905), pp. 910-912.
3. M. Planck, Das Prinzip der Relativität und die Grundgleichungen der
Mechanik, Verhandlungen der deutschen physikalischen Gesellschaft, 8, (1906),
pp. 136-141.
W. Kaufmann, Über die Konstitution des Elektrons, Annalen der Physik, 19,
(1906), pp. 530-531.
4. The Principle of Relativity: Original Papers by A. Einstein and H. Minkowski
Translated into English by M. N. Saha and S. N. Bose, University of Calcutta,
(1920), H. Minkowski, "Principle of Relativity", translated by Dr. Meghnad N.
Saha, p. 2.
H. Minkowski, Annalen der Physik, 47, (1915), p. 928.
5. M. Planck, Verhandlungen der deutschen physikalischen Gesellschaft, 8,
(1906), p. 136.
6. Max von Laue, Die Relativitätsprinzip der Lorentztransformation, Friedr.
Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, (1921), pp. 12, 48.
7. Alfred Arthur Robb, A Theory of Time and Space, CUP, (1914), p. 1.
8. C. Nordmann, Einstein et l'universe, (1921), translated by Joseph McCabe as
Einstein and the Universe, Henry Holt & Co., New York, (1922), pp. 10-11, 16.
9. James Mackaye, The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York,
(1931), pp. 100-101.
10. Sir Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity,
Vol. II, Philosophical Library Inc., New York, (1954), p. 40.
11. M. Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London,
(1924), pp. 188; Dover, New York, (1962), p. 224.
12. M. Born, Physics in my Generation, 2nd rev. ed., Springer-Verlag, New York,
(1969), pp. 101-103, 'Physics and Relativity'
13. P. G. Bergmann, The Riddle of Gravitation, Scribner, New York, (1968), p.
29.
14. G. H. Keswani, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 15, 60,
(1965), pp.293-295.
15. A. Einstein, Relativity, The Special and the General Theory, Second Ed.,
Crown Trade Paperbacks, New York, (1961), p. 171.
16. A. Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, translated by: G. B. Jeffery and W.
Perret, Methuen & Co., London, (1922); republished, unabridged and unaltered:
Dover, New York, (1983), p. 20.
17. J. H. Poincaré, Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Comptes rendus
hebdomadaires des séances de L'Académie des sciences, 140, (1905), pp.
1504-1508 (reprinted here).
Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Rendiconti del Circolo matimatico di Palermo,
21, (1906, submitted July 23rd, 1905), pp. 129-176. English trans. by H. M.
Schwartz, Amer. Jour. Of Phys. 39, (November, 1971), 1287-1294; 40, (June,
1972), 1282-1287; 40, (September, 1972), 1282-1287.
E. Cunningham, The Principle of Relativity, CUP, (1914), p. 173
18. H. Minkowski, Annalen der Physik, 47, (1915), p. 938.
19. A. Einstein and J. Laub, Über die elektromagnetischen Grundgleichungen für
bewegte Körper, Annalen der Physik, 26, (1908), p. 532.
20. D. Brian, Einstein, A Life, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996), pp.
316-317.
21. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 29th, 1934.
22. S. Tolver Preston, Physics of the Ether, E. & F. N. Spon, London, (1875),
p. 115.
23. S. Newcomb, On the Definition of the Terms Energy and Work, Philosophical
Magazine, 5, 27, (1889), pp. 115-117, reprinted herein.
24. G. N. Lewis, A Revision of the Fundamental Laws of Matter and Energy,
Philosophical Magazine, 16, (1908), pp. 707-717.
25. A. Bain, Logic, Vol. II, Longmans Green and Co., London, (1870), pp. 225,
389.
26. A. E. Dolbear, Matter, Ether and Motion, C. J. Peters & Son, Boston, 2nd
Ed. (1894), p. 345.
27. R. J. Boscovich, A theory of Natural Philosophy, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge,
(1966), p. 21.
28. Roger Cotes, Cote's preface to the second edition of Newton's Principia.
[Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his
System of the World, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London, pp. XX-XXXIII.]
29. G. and A. Ewing, and W. Smith, Sir Isaac Newton's: Account of the Æther, S.
Powell, Dublin, (1745), 'The Preface',
"Sir Isaac Newton discovered the Æther soon after he became acquainted with the
properties, actions and motions of corporeal things by experiments and
observations."
30. Emil Cohn stated the principle of relativity and discussed its heuristic
value, and addressed Fresnel's coefficient of drag, the relativistic Doppler
Effect and aberration. Furthermore, he stated that the æther was superfluous,
in agreement with Mill, Ostwald, Blavatsky, Bucherer, Poincaré, and (much
later) the Einsteins, etc. See: The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol
II, Princeton U. Press, (1989), pp. 260-261, and p. 307, note 6.
E. Cohn, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Systeme, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, der
physikalisch-mathematischen Classe, (1904), 1294-1303.
E. Cohn, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Systeme. II, Sitzungsberichte der
Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, der
physikalisch-mathematischen Classe, (1904), 1404-1416.
E. Cohn, Ueber die Gleichungen des elektromagnetischen Feldes für bewegte
Körper, Annalen der Physik, 7, (1902), pp. 29-56. "(Aus den Nachrichten d.
Gesellsch. D. Wissensch. zu Göttingen, 1901, Heft 1; Sitzung vom 11. Mai 1901.
Mit einer Aenderung p. 31.)"
E. Cohn, Über die Gleichungen der Elektrodynamik für bewegte Körper, Johannes
Bosscha, ed., RECUEIL DE TRAVAUX OFFERTS PAR LES AUTEURS À H. A. LORENTZ
PROFESSEUR DE PHYSIQUE À L'UNIVERSITÉ DE LEIDEN À L'OCCASION DU 25ME
ANNIVERSAIRE DE SON DOCTORAT LE 11 DÉCEMBRE 1900. LA HAYE, MARTINUS NIJHOFF.
1900. ARCHIVES NÉERLANDAISE DES SCIENCES EXACTES ET NATURELLES SÉRIE II, TOME
V. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, (1900), pp. 516-523.
31. A. A. Michelson, The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous
ether, American Journal of Science, 22, (1881), pp. 128-129.
George F. Barker, An Account of Progress in Physics and Chemistry in the Year
1881., from the Smithsonian Report for 1881, Government Printing Office,
Washington, (1883), pp. 29-30.
A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the
Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science, 34, (1887), p. 333.
A. A. Michelson, Studies in Optics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
(1928), pp. 156-166.
32. M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, The Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books,
New York, (1999). This work provides numerous insights into Albert and Mileva's
lives.
G. J. Whitrow, Einstein, the man and his achievement, Dover, New York, (1973),
pp. 21-22.
33. T. Pappas, Mathematical Scandals, Wide World Publishing/Tetra, San Carlos,
California, pp. 121-129.
Desanka Trbuhovi-Gjuri, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben der
Mileva Einstein-Mari, 5th Ed., Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern-Stuttgart-Wien, (1993),
p. 97.
Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, Oxford University Press, New York, (1982), p.
47.
Abraham Pais, Einstein Lived Here, Oxford University Press, New York, (1994),
pp. 14-16.
J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 1, Princeton
University Press, (1987), p. 282, letter from Albert to Mileva,
"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our
work on relative motion to an end!"
"Wie glücklich und stolz werde ich sein, wenn wir beide zusammen unsere Arbeit
über die Relativbewegung siegreich zu Ende geführt haben!"
34. A. F. Joffe, In Remembrance of Albert Einstein, Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk,
57, (1955), p. 187. Special thanks to my wife, Kristina, for her assistance in
the translation.
. . , , , 57, (1955), . 187.
35. Desanka Trbuhovi-Gjuri, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben
der Mileva Einstein-Mari, Paul Haupt, Bern & Stuttgart, (1983), p. 79.
36. A. Pais, Einstein Lived Here, Oxford University Press, New York, (1994), p.
15.
See also: A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997),
pp. 315, 375.
37. The Life and Mind of Albert Einstein, Videotape.
38. J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 1, Princeton
University Press, (1987), p. 282, letter from Albert to Mileva.
39. D. Brian, Einstein, A Life, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996), p.
33.
40. T. Pappas, Mathematical Scandals, Wide World Publishing/Tetra, San Carlos,
California, p. 127.
41. P. Michelmore, Einstein, Profile of the Man, Dodd, Mead, New York, (1962),
p. 35.
42. A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), p. 333.
43. P. Halsman, Einstein, A Centenary Volume, Harvard University Press, (1980),
p. 27
44. P. Michelmore, Einstein, Profile of the Man, p. 75.
45. M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, The Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books,
(1999), p. 100.
46. Carl Seelig, Albert Einstein, Europa Verlag, Zürich, (1960), p. 130.
47. C. Nordmann, L'illustration, April 15th, 1922.
48. Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger, March 23rd, 1921.
E. Gehrcke, Die Massensuggestion der Relativitätstheorie, and Kritik der
Relativitätstheorie, Hermann Meusser, Berlin, (1924), p. 74.
49. E. Gehrcke, Die Massensuggestion der Relativitätstheorie, and, Kritik der
Relativitätstheorie, both from Hermann Meusser, Berlin, (1924).
50. J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2, Princeton
University Press, (1989), p. 44.
A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), p. 108-110.
51. M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, The Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books,
New York, (1999), p. 170.
52. I. B. Cohen, Einstein, A Centenary Volume, Harvard University Press,
(1980), p. 41.
53. Michele Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, the Search for Lieserl, Riverhead
Books, Penguin Putnam, New York, (1999), p. 69.
54. Michele Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, the Search for Lieserl, Riverhead
Books, Penguin Putnam, New York, (1999), pp. 78-79.
55. P. Michelmore, Einstein, Profile of the Man, Dodd, Mead, New York, (1962),
p. 43.
56. Michele Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, the Search for Lieserl, Riverhead
Books, Penguin Putnam, New York, (1999), p. 244.
57. P. Michelmore, Einstein, Profile of the Man, Dodd, Mead, New York, (1962),
p. 22.
58. A. Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, Open Court, La Salle and Chicago,
(1979), pp. 48-51.
Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, Oxford University Press, (1982), p. 131.
Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity, (1984) pp. 107-108.
Compare to: Camille Flammarion, Lumen, Dodd, Mead, New York, (1897).
59. R. J. Boscovich,
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Article 16 & Sec. II, Article 21, (herein reprinted).
60. Physics Today, 35, 8, August, (1982), p. 46.
61. R. S. Shankland, American Journal of Physics, 31, (1962), p. 47; 41,
(1973), p. 895; 43, (1974), p. 464.
62. D. Brian, Einstein, A Life, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996), p.
59.
63. D. Brian, Einstein, A Life, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996), pp.
60-61.
64. M. White and J. Gribbin, Einstein, A Life in Science, Plume, New York,
(1995), p. 123.
65. A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), p. 418.
66. E. E. Slossen, Easy Lessons in Einstein, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New
York, (1921), p. vii.
67. This quote was brought to my attention in an anonymous e-mail--thank you,
whoever you are!
68. M. von Laue, Das Relativitätsprinzip der Lorentztransformation, Friedr.
Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, (1921), p. 48.
A. Einstein, Relativity, The Special and the General Theory, 2nd Ed., Crown
Trade Paperbacks, New York, (1961), p. 34.
69. J. H. Poincaré, Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Comptes rendus
hebdomadaires des séances de L'Académie des sciences, 140, pp.1504-1508
(reprinted here).
70. W. Voigt, "Ueber das Doppler'sche Princip", Nachrichten von der Königlichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen,
(1887), p. 41; reprinted Physikalische Zeitschrift, 16, (1915), p. 381, (herein
reprinted).
René Dugas, A History of Mechanics, Dover, New York, (1988), pp. 468, 484, 494.
H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, The Principle of
Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), p. 81.
Voigt demonstrated the invariance of the Group celeritas twenty years before
Minkowski.
71. R. J. Boscovich, A Theory of Natural Philosophy, The M.I.T. Press, (1966),
Back Cover.
72. D. Brian, Einstein, A Life, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996), p.
61.
73. J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2, Princeton
University Press, (1989), p. 255, Ref. 13.
74. M. Born, Physics in my Generation, 2nd rev. ed., Springer-Verlag, New York,
(1969), p. 101.
75. D. Hilbert, Die Grundlagen der Physik, (Erste Mitteilung.) Vorgelegt in der
Sitzung vom 20. November 1915., Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen, (1915), pp.
395-407.
76. Sir William Dampier, A History of Science and its Relations with Philosophy
& Religion, Macmillan, CUP, 1936, p. 427.
77. Paul Gerber, Die räumliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der Gravitation,
Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik, Leipzig, 43, (1898), pp. 93-104.
78. J. v. Soldner, [Berliner] Astronomisches Jarhbuch für das Jahr 1804, p.
161, reprinted in Annalen der Physik, 65, (1921), p.593-604.
79. M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, The Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books,
New York, (1999), p. 69.
80. H. Dukas and B. Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, The Human Side, Princeton
University Press, (1979), p. 38.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
"Everything is relative, that's the only thing absolute"--Auguste Comte
The special theory of relativity is fundamentally irrational and does not
follow logically from its precepts, which precepts are demonstrably false.
Ironically, it is not a relativity theory at all, but expresses pure
absolutism.1 Albert and Mileva's 1905 paper is absolutist with its universal
constants, absolute laws of Nature, absolute rest and absolute motion. The
Poincaré-Minkowski "space-time" of "nothing-moving" supposes a static
four-dimensional manifold in which nothing moves, as the absolute entity of
Nature, and expresses absolute intervals.
Mileva and Albert struggled to repeat Lorentz' absolutism of a stationary
æther, from a positivistic perspective, which was a self-contradicting effort,
for absolutes are ontological, as is the mathematics employed, and the
Einsteins simply produced semantic distinctions from Lorentz' theory, with no
real progress made toward a truly relativistic approach. On the other hand,
Stallo, MacGregor, Love, Lange, Mach, Pearson, the brothers Friedlaender and
many others strove for a generalized relativity theory, which would account for
fields, rotations and accelerations, long before 1905, in an effort to
discredit Newton's mythology of absolute space and time. However, they, too,
confused abstract, metaphysical mathematics with observed physical reality, and
were unsuccessful.
A few cursory remarks regarding the "theory of relativity" are in order, by way
of introduction. There really is no such thing as the generic "theory of
relativity". Throughout history, there have been many theories of relativity,
some of which are ancient propositions. Some have asserted that there are
fixed, or absolute, positions in space, such as the absolute center of the
universe, or points within a hypothetical fluid claimed to "fill space", called
the "æther", which fluid is the medium for light waves. Others, more
rationally, asserted that what we call "space" is this fluid æther, forever
straining in its struggle to become itself.
The absolutists would assert, for example, that the White House was at a fixed
position in the universe on October 15th, 1999, at exactly 12:00 PM local time,
and that place, among its 3 + 1 dimensions, has always existed in the universe
and always will exist in the universe, whether the White House is there, or
not. This is not a spot on the Earth, but a fixed position in "space", which
the White House likely occupied only once and perhaps only for a mere instant
of time.
Others, the true relativists, and in a different sense, the Cartesians, aver
that only relative positions exist in the universe. They would assert that the
White House is known by its position relative to the Earth and relative to
those who look at it, and that its position has no meaning beyond these
observed relationships of bodies, with 3 + 1 dimensions being nothing but the
extension of changing forms, the rarefaction-expansion of
densities-contractions, or vice versa. They would further assert that motion
does not take place relative to a fixed place in space, but only relative to
other moving things. This notion, that motion is the relative relationship
between moving bodies, is an ancient notion.
Mileva and Albert dubbed their theory of the relative motion of bodies, which
they published in 1905, the 'principle of relativity', but, though it is in
part a quasi-kinematic theory, it is not in truth a relativity theory.
The term 'principle of relativity' was not original to the Einsteins. It was,
in fact, a common term long before they entered the scene. It was found in
German in Lange,2 Stallo,3 Violle,4 Poincaré,5 and the German translation, with
notes by Felix Hausdorff,6 of Huygens' Seventeenth Century seminal paper on
relativity theory, "Über die Bewegung der Körper durch den Stoss / Über die
Centrifugalkraft", all before 1905. The term also appeared in many other
languages, prior to 1905.
The principle of relativity basically states that if you are in unaccelerated
motion with your surroundings, it appears to you that you are at rest.
Copernicus expressed the sentiment, and Newton established its formalism,
beginning with the Fifth Corollary to the Laws of Motion found in his
Principia.
As an example of the principle, consider that if you sit on the Earth, it seems
to you that you are at rest with the Earth, humbly watching the sky, and that
the sun and moon appear to move around you--the Earth, each day, which is why
people believed for thousands of years that the sun revolved around the Earth,
while the Earth remained at absolute rest. Many peoples used to believe that
the Earth was the center of the universe. If you were to sit in a smooth riding
train, again you would feel as if you were at rest, and the world outside your
window would be rushing past you. This psychological sensation of rest is a
critical aspect of the special theory of relativity, which theory asserts that
there is no absolute space, and thus no absolute rest, but only perceived rest,
which perceived rest governs physical appearances--the conceptualization of
measurements. Of course, it is not true that you and the Earth "rest" together
in stressless unity. Step into an open manhole and you will soon perceive your
motion--the motion of your surroundings--the pressure of the æther.
Toward the end of the Nineteenth Century, people began to believe that light
always appeared to move at the same speed no matter how you measured it,
whether you were "resting" or not. The principle of relativity was extended to
include the idea, that whenever you try to measure the speed of light, by
inference from the laws of refraction or aberration, or by a reflected, round
trip voyage, the light you observe will always appear to travel at the same
speed relative to you. To a person standing on the Earth, light from a moving
comet appeared to travel at the same speed as light emitted from the person's
own lantern.
This, at first, seems odd, because you might expect that the light from the
comet would travel at the speed of light plus the speed of the comet relative
to you. After all, if you throw a baseball at 90 mph from a car moving 100 mph
at a person standing still on the side of the road, the baseball will move
faster than if you were to throw it while standing still beside him on the
road. Velocities add up! If you throw the baseball at 90 mph, in both cases
relative to you, the pitcher, the catcher will catch a ball going 190 mph if
you throw it from a car moving toward him or her at 100 mph, but only 90 mph if
you are standing still relative to him or her (discounting other forces).
Light appeared not to work that way. Light was always clocked at the same speed
no matter what the relative velocity of the source and the receiver to the
medium might be. This conflicted with two assumptions, one: That aberration
resulted from an æther at absolute rest; two: That the speed of light in space
coming to us from distant planets, their moons, and the stars, was constant and
was added to the motion of the Earth in a Euclidean fashion with the "resting
space" of the "fixed" stars operating as an isotropic, homogenous medium for
light propagation.
Before the "discovery" that light always appeared to travel at the same speed,
Albert Michelson wanted to prove that light was a wave in the "æther", which
fluid he believed filled space--effectively is space, and that the æther did
not move together with the Earth, but, instead, that the Earth moved relative
to the æther--that the Earth moved through the æther as the Earth traveled
about the sun, like a ship circling a great sea. It was also believed that the
Solar System, itself, had a definite motion through the æther. Since waves
always travel at the same rate in their medium, their speed being a function of
the density and elasticity of the medium, Michelson set out to detect the
medium of light, the æther, by measuring light's speed compounded with the
motion of the Earth through space--the æther, and at perpendiculars to that
motion. The speed of the waves in the supposedly homogenous sea was presumed to
be constant, and should have been compounded with the speed of the vessel--the
Earth--if the Earth moved toward the light ray relative to the æther, and
light's relative velocity should have been diminished by the Earth's motion
relative to the æther, in the other direction. Michelson wanted to prove that
the vessel was moving through the sea when he "pitched" light at a co-moving
mirror and "caught it" when it returned.
Think of space as a pool of water, and light as waves in the water. Since waves
always travel at the same rate in the same uniform swimming pool, if you throw
a rock in the water and swim toward the waves, which waves move from the splash
toward you, you will reach the waves in less time, than if you were to throw a
rock in the water and stand still in the water and wait for the waves to reach
you on their own. If a ship starting out in California sails towards a ship in
Hawaii, the ship in Hawaii can hasten their meeting by sailing toward the
approaching vessel.
Michelson believed that if he shined light from a source and moved toward the
absolute position of the source where it emitted the light--that if he imparted
a wave in the distant sea, and moved through the waters toward the initial
position of wave disturbance in the sea--the light would reach him in less time
than if he were to shine light from a source and not move through the æther
toward the æthereal point of initial disturbance--the wave would reach him in
less time if he sailed toward it, than it would if he were to rest in the water
and wait for it to reach him. Michelson also believed that the time required
for light to propagate from source to receiver increased should the receiver
move away from the position of the source in the æther, where the source
emitted its light. The result being, that the back and forth propagation of
light emitted from points A to B, and reflected by a mirror back to A, occupies
more time if A and B are co-moving in a rectilinear, uniform motion of
translation through the æther, than it would if A and B were to rest in the
æther, and the faster their motion with respect to the æther, the greater the
time of round trip propagation. Should A and B co-move at a superluminal speed,
the reflected light would have no chance to return to its source.
Michelson made critical mistakes in the formulation of his experiment of 1881,7
and was motivated by a false premise, common in his day, that aberration
compelled an absolutely resting æther, unaffected by electromagnetic fields.
His experiment failed. Lorentz presented the corrections needed in Michelson's
formulation, maintaining a dubious belief that the æther was at absolute rest.
Michelson tried again, in 1887,8 but again was unable to detect any relative
motion between the Earth and the æther.
Michelson was shocked to discover that light always seemed to take the same
time to travel from point A to point B and back to point A, whether points A
and B moved through the æther, or not. If the swimmer remained still, the water
remained still with him. If he moved, the water moved with him. It was exactly
as if, when the swimmer swims towards, or away from, the waves from the rock he
throws, the water moves with him as he swims, such that he would always reach
the waves in the same time if he threw the rock the same distance, whether he
swims towards the waves, away from the waves, or stands and waits. Michelson
abandoned his belief in an absolutely resting æther and looked to Stoke's
exposition on aberration.
FitzGerald, Larmor and Lorentz were not persuaded that the concept of an
absolute resting æther had been discredited by Michelson's experiments. They
set out to explain the inability of Michelson's experiment to detect the
so-called "æther wind" through Boscovich's length contraction hypothesis, and
eventually arrived at Voigt's positional transformation of 1887, with a
different scale factor. Poincaré dubbed this Voigtish transformation the
"Lorentz Transformation".
The Lorentz Transformation is like a foot race in which each runner leaves from
the same starting line, at the same time, and each crosses the finish line at
the same time as the other runners, NO MATTER HOW FAST EACH RUNS! One
contestant may walk, one may jog, and one may sprint, but each crosses the
finish line at the same moment--the finish line does not move, and each
contestant moves at the same speed relative to the finish line, as speed is
conceptualized through the measurements of apparatus at rest with respect to
the individual racer, even though each contestant moves at a different speed
relative to the other contestants. This can only be accomplished with some
tricky math and even trickier conceptions regarding form, time, and
simultaneity, but if we tolerate such unproven and physically contradicted
mathematical abstractions, and we let each runner live in his or her reference
frame, we can mathematically transform the race into a form of a complete tie,
and it wouldn't matter if they each run at a different pace relative to the
others. We can do anything with mathematics, for we control the definitions of
the rules and the value of the symbols. That is why mathematics is a useful
tool--it is an adaptable, but, one would hope, rational, implement of
conceptualization. Mathematics is a language, which is meant to describe
observation as concisely and precisely as is imaginable. It is a logical
argument. Should one definition conflict with another, mathematics becomes
nonsense. The program shuts down, and the programmer has to find the bug.
Poincaré asserted, for example, that the only way to explain the constant speed
of light was with a new 'principle of relativity', by which, every person
carries their own space with them, each swimmer carries the pool with him or
her, and cannot move through the water, no matter how hard he or she strokes,
such that waves in the water will always travel at the same rate relative to
him or her. Not only can a person not move through space, but when boats pass
by, they shrink, the faster they move, the more they shrink. And not only that,
but the clocks on the boats, said clocks being naught but uniform motions, slow
down, the faster a boat moves, the slower are the clocks on board. For, why
should the clocks remain the same? The to and fro "uniform motions" of the
"resting clocks" have been altered by their acceleration. The to and fro
"uniform motions", clocks, are anisotropic between moving systems. Most
strangely, two events which seem to happen at the same time to one person, with
his or her space, seem to happen at different times relative to another person,
with his or her space.
Poincaré called these bizarre contortions of space and time the "Lorentz
Transformations", after Lorentz, who supposedly formalized them, which
mathematical transformations theoretically transform space, time and
simultaneity, in such a way that the speed of light remains constant for every
observer, with his or her private relationship to the universe, which universe
is supposedly a fixed, quadri-dimensional manifold--a rigid structure in which
nothing moves, in which nothing changes--it is a still photograph in four
dimensions--a four-dimensional statue.
Of course, there is no proof that the things the Lorentz Transformation
requires to happen to form and time actually happen to space or time. The
quadri-dimensional manifold is an abstract "rule", not a reality, and cannot be
observed, for it does not exist. The Lorentz Transformation is rather an
axiomatic, mathematical proposal, that if the bizarre contortions were to
occur, then the speed of light would remain constant, as observed. Later
observations, such as the infamous 'paradox of the twins' and the fact that
moving stars appear as spheres and not ellipsoids, evince that the Poincaré
interpretation of the Lorentz Transformation in fact does not occur, but I am
walking in front of my story. . . .
The space each person supposedly carries with him or her is called his or her
"inertial reference frame" or "inertial system", which concept was formalized
and named by Ludwig Lange9 in 1885, and completely misunderstood by Mileva
Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein in 1905. An inertial system is determined
through abstraction by theoretically laying down "rigid" rods in the directions
of the Cartesian coordinates, xyz and measuring time t with a clock that sits
still in the space of xyz--never mind that said "still clock" is a uniform
motion. Moving rods or clocks won't work (even though the clock is itself a
motion), because moving rods shrink and moving clocks run slow, even though all
clocks must move--are motions. A system is also only considered inertial if
bodies, subjected to no force, remain at rest, or uniform translatory motion
with respect to the system's coordinates, which condition is not axiomatic, but
must be met by empirical testing, rendering the definition of an inertial
system circular, and, therefore, unscientifically meaningless.
One person's inertial reference frame becomes another person's inertial
reference frame by way of the mathematical, magical Lorentz Transformation, if
the other moves in uniform rectilinear translation with respect to the first,
and vice versa. There is a prerequisite that no forces act upon the inertial
reference frame. It is a prerequisite which is never met in reality--which can
never be met, in reality.
Poincaré's 'principle of relativity', which is, in fact, a corollary to the
myth of the absolute world, fails to take into account the fact that all bodies
are surrounded by a medium. All bodies are in perpetual motion through the
medium which surrounds them, and it is useful to consider the medium as a
source of pressure, even though pressure exists only in words, being an
anthropomorphic interpretation of universal change. (I can't change what we
are, but I can draw attention to it.)
Newton considered inertia to be a force, but such a conception is
self-defeating, for a "force" is not "inert". Newton's system is fundamentally
irrational. He claimed that matter is inert, that matter can do nothing if
subjected to no force, and in the same breath, claimed this impotence itself to
be a "force". Des Cartes had argued, parroting Aristotle, that there is no
"sufficient reason", to use Leibnitz' later phrase, for a thing to change,
unless acted upon by something else. Newton took this rationalization as a
metaphysical, no, theological force. Newton10 religiously argued that God
allowed bodies which are at rest in God's body, space, to remain at rest, and,
further, that it is God's will that bodies passing through His body, space, do
so unimpeded in their motions. Since Newton attributed these states of inert
matter, in relation to the universe at large, as dependent upon God's will, he
claimed that these inertial states are, therefore, theological forces.
It was very poor, simplistic reasoning. If bodies are inert, and space is, for
the sake of argument, empty, as Newton maintained in his Principia, then, for
inert matter to resist motion, or to continue in motion, rationally requires
that bodies be in themselves forces, and, therefore, the contrary of "inert".
We must abandon Newton's nonsense and perhaps may conclude either that matter
is not inert, but instead moves by itself and resists of its own force, or that
space is a pressurized fluid and that inert matter obeys the whims of the
polarity of pressure in the fluid of space; or that matter is not inert, but is
itself a waveform propagating in the fluid of space; or that matter is a
pseudo-structure of voids in a turbulent fluid of space. To assume that matter
is inert, and yet a force, vis Inertiæ, capable of acting at a distance as the
forces of gravity and magnetism, is to speak in contradiction and to assign
supernatural properties of force to that which is also assigned the nature of
"inertness".
As in so many instances, Des Cartes and Newton come full circle to the dubious
throne of Aristotle. What is considered logic, is, in fact, often the Petitio
Principii of assuming conclusions as premises.
For Des Cartes, his assertions reduce to the absurdity that the universe does
not change, for there is no sufficient reason for it to do so, without the
artificial intervention of divine will. Aristotle, Aquinas, Des Cartes and
Leibnitz simply place this dilemma two steps back and assert that God was the
Prime Mover, and that all change stems from that first motion, and, further,
that the universe as a whole does not change, but merely rearranges itself.
Newton saw the weakness in Des Cartes' argument, but did nothing to improve
upon it. Newton believed that the sum of the "quantity of motion" in the
universe (for Aristotle, Des Cartes, and Newton, the quantity of motion was
momentum, for Leibnitz and Huygens, it was energy) could be increased or
diminished, implying the winding down of the universal clock, and the necessary
intervention of the divine will of the Creator to wind the watch work and keep
the universe alive with motion.
Newton, in the 31st Query to his Opticks, second edition, calls the force of
inertia a "passive principle",
"The vis Inertiæ is a passive principle by which bodies persist in their motion
or rest, receive motion in proportion to the force impressing it, and resist as
much as they are resisted. By this principle alone there never could have been
any motion in the world. Some other principle was necessary for putting bodies
into motion; and now that they are in motion, some other principle is necessary
for conserving the motion."
Clearly, the "passive principle" of a want of sufficient reason for change, is
different from the active principles of resistence and force, and Newton
contradicts himself. Newton's sufficient reason for both the active and the
passive statement of vis Inertiæ is God's will, God as the Sensorium of the
universe, God as space and time. But, "God" is a term, not an observation.
"God" is a desire for there to be a reason, not an understanding of the reason.
Stating that "God" is the cause of the universe and of change, without exposing
the nature of His actions, is simply giving the universe another name, and
tacitly threatening those who ask for a more intelligible argument than faith
with being stigmatized as "nonbelievers".
All that these men did was to put words to hollow assumptions, as though naming
vague desires to know, were a valid substitute for knowledge, itself. Observing
change, and assuming that change has a cause, then merely naming this
assumption that change has a cause, "energy" or "God", does not define "energy"
or "God". Observing that form exists and presents resistence to touch, then
observing that what we identify as the same substance, changing from moment to
moment,
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
change, does not define matter. Defining "matter" as "energy", or "energy" as
"matter", creates a meaningless identity of two undefined terms, two wishes to
know, which wishes we pretend are knowledge. Asserting that change cannot occur
without change, while observing everything to change, is a truism, but one must
look upon uniform motion then not as change, but as the human symbol of a
pretentious state, a group of words without real meaning, and not a physical
relation. Distinctions such as motion, form, unchanging substratum, etc. are
purely artificial and result from the Petitio Principii argument that inertia
is the want of a sufficient reason for change, and that there is supposedly no
sufficient reason why motion should diminish.
Newton, likewise, returned to Aristotle's theological argument of first motion,
the creation of energy--cause, with his watch work universe of theological
"forces". Heraclitus had the argument the right way about, and took change as
an axiom, with the universe arising from change, perpetually. Hume considered
the dogma of cause and effect to be an anthropomorphic pretense, like a small
child picking up a stone and saying, "look at the happy rock!"
* * *
The motion of bodies through their surrounding medium creates a greater system
of motion, in that the moving body becomes a lesser part of a greater heat-wave
propagating in the medium. Nothing exists as a kinematic ideal. Kinematic
ideals are, rather, the Platonic denial of observed reality.
Think of space as air, a fluid medium, and all bodies exist as sound waves in
this continuous "air apparent". It is impossible to separate the motion of
bodies from their wave-nature in this medium of space. How do we define and/or
detect this medium of existence? Isn't space just empty, nothing? Many facts
indicate that space is actually a fluid, which holds bodies in a state of
buoyancy, like ships in the ocean. We tend to forget that the buoyancy of a
floating ship is a function not only of sea and slip, but of air and "empty"
space, by far, mostly "empty" space. This medium is, perhaps, not a fluid of
particles and voids, but rather a fluid of waves, without voids, only
differences--polarities--with the "force of inertia" being the status of a
propagating wave, which status is preserved unless acted upon by a "force",
which status is the sum of forces in the medium creating form--the body wave.
Bodies form waves in the fluid when they move, and bodies are always in motion
through the fluid. The very existence of bodies is thought by some to be waves
and/or flows and/or turbulence in the fluid of space. The wave disturbances,
which result from the perpetual motion of bodies, displace other bodies by
changing the polarity of their motions, often towards, or away from, the source
of the disturbance, just as reflective surfaces change the polarity of motion
of light and sound waves.
The fallacy of "empty space" is the natural result of our psychological make-up
and our language of contraries. We assign to that which gives us direct sense
experience the property of being, and for that which does not yield to us
direct sensual experience, we claim a lack of being, finding only "void"
between those things felt and seen, our lover is missing in the night, and we
find traces of her in the curved felt. In constructing our conceptualization of
space, we imagine that areas of our view, which yield darkness, are areas of
nothingness, and spaces, which render no pressure on our sense of touch, are
likewise areas of nothingness. We confuse internal sensation with the existence
or nonexistence of externals. As infants, we form conceptual associations
between touch and sight and generate consciousness as a tridimensional internal
reality, which we mistakenly project metaphysically as being a mirror of
physical reality. From this conceptual construct comes the inspired delusion of
"empty space". However, the phenomena we observe disclose to us the existence
of some thing in that region of our conscious construct, which yields to us no
direct sensual experience. It is only natural to liken this stuff of the unseen
to that which is seen, and maintain a pure philosophy of the state of our
being, if only to keep from contradicting ourselves. We call this stuff,
"æther" and observe it through its effects.
What we conceive of as a brick of plutonium, may be no different from a similar
displacement of "empty space", other than in its polarities and rates of
motion. One is perhaps a choppy sea, the other, the calm waters of the deep.
Given two bodies in relative motion, the heat-wave of each takes on a different
form depending on the state of each in its surrounding medium, which state is
independent of the relative motion between the two bodies, and which state can
vary greatly, even under the same condition of their relative motion.
Therefore, purely relative motion is shown to be a fallacy, whereby, we pretend
that one relation accounts for all relations.
The concept of purely relative motion asserts that if I see you moving faster
relative to me, you are actually moving faster, per se, and if we collide, the
faster we move relative to each other, the more energy we will have when we hit
each other. The concept of purely relative motion also asserts that this
addition of velocities, and the impact which may result from it, is independent
of the medium of space and takes the same form under all circumstances of the
same relative motion. In other words, if two cars run into each other, it
doesn't matter if one is going 100 mph relative to the road and hits a parked
car, or if two cars moving relative to the road head on at 50 mph each. 50 + 50
= 100. But, as I shall demonstrate, the concept of purely relative motion is an
unfortunate fallacy, as evinced by the positions of the cars, relative to the
road, after collision.
For example, consider a small tug boat and an ocean liner. Further consider
that a relative motion occurs between the two, in that they approach each
other. This expression of relative motion discounts the medium (the water)
through which they move, and by moving, disturb, and in which each becomes part
of a greater heat-wave, when each moves through the medium.
If the tug remains relatively still in the water, it does not form much of a
heat-wave, which will have an impact on the ocean liner, should the two impact
with each other. However, should the ocean liner move toward the tug, the ocean
liner will greatly disturb the medium (the water), and will become part of an
immense heat-wave, which will have a powerful effect on the tug, should the two
impact with each other. Constructive and/or destructive wave interference is
discounted when we discount the medium of existence.
Under the reverse conditions, with the ocean liner at comparative rest in the
water, and the tug moving through the water towards the ocean liner, the same
relative motion of the tug and the ocean liner moving toward each other occurs
as in the first case, but the results of the impact will be quite different,
contrary to the concept of purely relative motion. We forget that each vessel
is an ephemeral wave form, and not an ideal, inert lump of something-nothing.
The moving tug will produce a much smaller heat-wave in the water, than would
the moving ocean liner. The impact of the tug-wave into the ocean liner is not
the same as the impact of the ocean liner-wave into the tug. Purely relative
motion is a fallacy.
Boats "at rest" have a hard time accelerating in the water. Moving boats have a
hard time stopping. The water creates inertia and momentum, and the medium of
space creates inertia and momentum, which inertia and momentum render
impossible purely relative motion. More on this later. . .
If we assume, as Newton would have us do, that matter is inert, and further
assume, as Newton would not have us do, that space is void and motion purely
relative, then many absurdities arise in experiments.
Consider Karl Pearson's line segment thought experiment.12 Sketch a line from
point A to point B. In the middle of the line, add two points separated by a
short distance, points C and D. In physical space, we will find that if we cut
the line between C and D, the two segments AC and DB will sometimes remain in
relative rest, and sometimes will fly apart from each other.
If, for example, we conceptualize the line as rotating, the two pieces will fly
apart, unless we further conceptualize that the "rotation" is a delusion
brought on by the actual motions of the surroundings, such as spinning a sling
about your head does not make your hair stand on end, but should you drop the
sling and spin it through "your motion", by dancing around in a circle, not
only will your hair leap from its limp indifference, but the stone will become
obstinate and refuse to leave the sling!
None of these observable phenomena can be explained by the concept of purely
relative motion of inert matter in "empty space", but each is immediately
explained, metaphysically and physically, by the hypothesis of a medium, which
medium conceptually fulfills abstract geometry, and without the absurdities of
geometrical versus kinematic measurements found in the inane special theory of
relativity.
***
Mileva and Albert repeated Poincaré's 'principle of relativity', years later,
and unfairly took credit for it. This theory of the constant speed of light
came to be known as the "special theory of relativity", upon submission of the
"general theory of relativity". Albert wrote in the introduction to his 1916
paper on the general theory of relativity,
"The theory set forth in what follows constitutes the most far reaching
generalization imaginable of what is today generally designated the 'theory of
relativity'; in what follows, I name the latter the 'special theory of
relativity' in order to differentiate it from the former and take it for
granted."
"Die im nachfolgenden dargelegte Theorie bildet die denkbar weitgehendste
Verallgemeinerung der heute allgemein als ,,Relativitätstheorie" bezeichneten
Theorie; die letztere nenne ich im folgenden zur Unterscheidung von der
ersteren ,,spezielle Relativitätstheorie" und setze sie als bekannt voraus."
In science, theories which cover a limited range are called "special" cases or
theories, and those which apply themselves generally to all cases are called
"general" theories. Since the special theory of relativity applied only to
abstract inertial frames of reference and abstract absolute space, it was not
general, and did not apply to rotations and gravitation--forceless, forced
accelerations in general. As Albert phrased it in section one of his 1916 paper
on the generalization of the theory,
"The special theory of relativity is founded upon the following postulate,
which is also satisfied by Galilean-Newtonian mechanics: If a system of
coordinates K is chosen such that, with respect to it, physical laws are valid
in their simplest form, then these same laws are also valid with respect to
every other system of coordinates K', which is engaged in a uniform,
translatory motion relative to K. We call this postulate the "special principle
of relativity". By the word "special" one is to understand that the principle
is limited to the case, where K' executes a uniform, translatory motion in
comparison with K, but that the equivalence of K' and K not refer to the case
of non-uniform motion of K' with respect to K."
"Der speziellen Relativitätstheorie liegt folgendes Postulat zugrunde, welchem
auch durch die Galilei-Newtonsche Mechanik Genüge geleistet wird: Wird ein
Koordinatensystem K so gewählt, daß in bezug auf dasselbe die physikalischen
Gesetze in ihrer einfachsten Form gelten, so gelten dieselben Gesetze auch in
bezug auf jedes andere Koordinatensystem K', das relativ zu K in gleichförmiger
Translationsbewegung begriffen ist. Dieses Postulat nennen Wir ,,spezielles
Relativitätsprinzip". Durch das Wort ,,speziell" soll angedeutet werden, daß
das Prinzip auf den Fall beschränkt ist, daß K' eine gleichförmiger
Translationsbewegung gegen K ausführt, daß sich aber die Gleichwertigkeit von
K' und K nicht auf den Fall ungleichförmiger Bewegung von K' gegen K
erstreckt."
Albert, again reiterating what Weber, Lange, MacGregor, Gerber, Poincaré, de
Sitter, Mie, Hilbert and others had earlier accomplished, broadened the special
theory and set forth a general theory to account for gravity and rotations.
These are but two of countless relativity theories, some of which date back at
least to the time of the Greeks. The Greeks were less pretentious--more
competitive--than we are today. It is doubtful if they would have stepped off
the cliff, smiling in obeisance, as we do today, following the legend of a mad
leader, like the imitative clown, Albert Einstein. The Greeks had no reason to
pretend that the irrational was rational. They were free--even if their slaves
were not.
I will use the expression, "the special theory of relativity" to generically
express the modern, institutional dogma regarding inertial motion, and
"relativity" in general in a broader sense encompassing all periods of thought
on the subject of relative motion and relational existence.
The special theory of relativity makes the following assertions: time, space
(Albert did not make claim that space was relative, but Poincaré and Minkoski
did, and Albert was later persuaded to adopt the view), motion and simultaneity
are relative. For the pseudo-relativist who adheres to the special theory of
relativity, there is no such reality as "absolute" time, space, motion or
simultaneity (please refer to the section herein on Newton for the definitive
explanation of relative and absolute), except for the world postulate of
absolute intervals and Lorentz invariants in the theoretical absolute world of
"space-time". In other words, the special theory of relativity is an absolutist
theory disguised as a relativity theory. When a semantic distinction is made
from an absolute, without changing the underlying nature of the image, as is
the case in the special theory of relativity, the underlying belief--myth,
remains, pure absolutism--God as existence immutable, God as numbers, and not
God as the gentle tolerance of each other, with our differences, and our innate
beauty. Since the special theory of relativity is absolutist, it is not
science, but a religion. It is political conformity to a limiting ideal, the
myth of the absolute world--with the tacit fatalistic assumption that we cannot
destroy ourselves, but merely follow God's will, Albert's folly--right off the
face of the cliff. Science takes nothing as absolute. Science is skeptical and
progressive, not faith based, not religious.
The truly relativistic line of thought is found in Aristotle, and Aristotle's
documentation of others, such as Heraclitus, with his Logos universe (dynamic
change as opposed to the absolute of static space-time), and Zeno, with his
rest arrow in flight (beyond-inertial reference frame) and paradoxes of motion,
and is an oft repeated refrain throughout recorded history. Relativity theory
was not only known to the Greeks, it was developed to an extent that Albert was
never able even to copy in a cogent fashion, let alone fully comprehend.
Heraclitus was caught in the tangling web of the contraries of language. He
envisioned their reduction to an absurdity as the revelation of truth. I wonder
if Heraclitus poetically wondered why he twice asked the same questions, and
twice arrived at the same absurdities, twice wondered at the wet clothes he
bore as a man, less than the universe, stepping into itself, wondering at
himself, chewing at Adam's apple, wet with wonder, fully clothed before the
slippery bark of the ephemeral tree of knowledge, like Socrates, proud to know
that he did not know, how he had changed, only to realize that, knowing, he had
changed, how, unknown, as if not knowing, speculation itself, moved the
unmoving reluctantly to motion, the great pain of fear forcing forth the
forever, which is forever unknown, as the love of knowledge, a perfectly
beautiful lover never to be embraced, but to be wished for, forever, and in
wishing, walks the river, never twice alone, never once without the wish.
The Greeks felt a need to resolve the issue of contraries, and to define
logically what constitutes mental relations and conscious awareness. Contraries
are opposites, like hot and cold, up and down, good and evil, or black and
white. Some asserted that contraries are in fact not contrary, but are merely
distinct, that black is different from white, but not opposite white.
Heraclitus resolved contraries through the process of synthesis found in the
dialectic method. He asserted that all known things are mere relations. "The
way up the stairs is the way down the stairs." "Hot is cold." A lonely lover
cannot withdraw dry from the same river he dreamed, unsame, for he reviles
himself. For Heraclitus, contraries were not opposites and were not distinct,
but were two aspects of the same thing, the lonely Self categorizing its
observations of change, the evaporation of death into forever. The humble wish
for a son who resembles his father, unfulfilled forever.
The Greeks, in general, believed that consciousness exists as the relations of
images and that motion exists as the change in relations of objects, the
natural affinity of Nature to arrive at itself, even perpetually. Heraclitus
asserted that a person cannot step into the same river twice, for fresh waters
are always rushing in on him or her, the infant duality. In order to perceive
change, and motion necessitates change, one must conceive of at least two
objects for the mind to conceive of there being any motion, for one object
cannot change position in relation to nothing, but an object can only change
position relative to something else. Motion is the mental image of a change of
relation between objects.
What was here is now there. Hence, it has moved, or everything else has moved
about it. Both here and there are not absolute places, but are objects, which
can themselves move. Here may be an airport in Paris and there may be an
airport in Los Angeles, but here and there are never absolute positions in the
universe, because the airports themselves are known to move relative to the
sun, and the sun moves relative to the "fixed stars". Motion is a change of
relation of moving bodies, and not a change of absolute position, or so it
would seem.
According to the Greek relativists, the absolute, reality beyond our perception
of relation, does not exist to us. All things are relative! Nothing is
absolute, except change!
This style of relativity theory was the predominate, generally accepted theory
before Isaac Newton, and remained the predominate theory after Newton. It was
chiefly Newton who interjected the myths of absolutivity into physics. His
pantheism was to blame. It was his quasi-religious armor to keep the moths of
the church from nibbling away at the tapestry of life he wove with frail human
fingers. He believed that absolute space and time are the body and breath, or
force, of God, or so he asserted, and the church let him be.
Tertullian12 instituted this belief in pantheism as one of the first
Roman-Christian beliefs and went so far as to corrupt the ancient and the
then-modern scriptures, through mistranslation from Hebrew and Greek into
Latin. God was, for Tertullian, the inanimate body of the material universe,
the flesh of form, quite literally the material body of God. The universe, God
as the duality of breath and flesh, was, for Tertullian, a Roman bulwark, a
fuming, wrathful beast--a man. Marcion13 saw a gentler image in the white robe
of Christ, a promise of peace, and the death of hate--the birth of the Son of a
new God. Marcion declared the vengeful God of the Old Testament our enemy, and
found in Jesus our salvation, not from ourselves, but from the vindictiveness
of the old God. Marcion, like unlike Arius, they called a "heretic", and
doubted that man had in him something better than a hateful old God. Tertullian
brought Rome to God by making God a man, and not man, a god.
The Holy "Wind" of Hebrew () and Greek () scripture, became, through
Tertullian's deliberate mistranslation into Latin, Spiritus, or Holy "Breath",
which material Divine Breath animated the material body of God and allowed the
universe to move and live. Adam was a miniature replication of the universe,
which is also to say that the universe replicates man, and it took the Divine
Breath, Spiritus, to animate the material image of God, the flesh of man.14
Newton was familiar with Tertullian's views. Though Newton, himself, was a
devout Arian.15 God was not a man, nor the legend of an ideal man, for God was
all and all was God, immutable and perfect, a lover who would never leave the
baroque watch work of Newton's imagination, a predictable God, who had always
lain beside man, through the dark danger of being, alone. Newton was afraid,
afraid to admit that the river flowed. He was an absolutist who depended upon
absolute laws, which he alone could write. He was a scribe sharing with a
candle the darkness and the light of his verses of a God like him.
St. Jerome and the Vulgate set Tertullian's mistranslation in stone. It became
the sunken cornerstone upon which the trinity theory was built. Newton accepted
God as space and force, but not as Jesus Christ, not as compassion, but as
abstract and simple law, to be imposed on the weak, the confused flotsam of
matter, by an all-compelling force. In Newton's day, the pantheism of early
Roman-Christians had long since been Hellenized, Romanized and made
superstitious, and the Latin Holy "Breath" which animated the otherwise
lifeless material body of God, Tertullian's law, and the force of inhuman
justice, became Holy "Ghost" and Holy "Spirit" in German and English
mistranslations, in contradistinction to the Hebrew immaterial God and Holy
Wind, which pervade the Old and New Testaments in their original tongues.
Another example of early, quite early, Christian pantheism is found in St.
John's account of Genesis, which, correctly translated, reads, "In the
beginning was the 'Fire', and the 'Fire' was with God, and the 'Fire' was God."
The Logos of John refers to the universal "Fire" of Heraclitus, and not the
vain "Word" of the priests (refer to Philo Judæus for evidence of the fact), as
appears in the Vulgate and later mistranslations, patterned after it, nor the
Reason of Tertullian, the sophistic and unfair lawyer, who likened God to
himself.
Heraclitus conceived of the universe as an eternal flame of change, or, as he
called it, "Logos". St. John changed the thrust of the Hebrew creation of the
Earth into a pantheistic God of flux, without a beginning. This pantheism is
repeated in the mandate that God be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present.
Isaac Newton was devoted to the concept of a pantheistic God, and felt that the
Church had done great harm to religion, by such myths as the Trinity theory.
The mere act of translating Hebrew to Greek, begun in the Septuagint,
Hellenized Hebrew images into the superstitious images of Greek thinkers, and
apparently, there is no turning back. The Vulgate mistranslation created a new
doctrine of "semanticology" or the worship of supposedly Divine Words. The
priests were the keepers of the semantic, and thus became the interpreters of
God. The mistranslation of Logos as "Word", from the fiery change of the
cosmos, to obedience to a book--obedience to the priests who read the book,
resulted in tremendous power for the growing Church. Most people were
illiterate, and, later, could not even understand spoken Latin. That God should
be words, and foreign words no less, made the priests who spoke and understood
those words supernatural figures--even though the words had been corrupted to
place power in the pompous hands of the priests.
What was initially an effort to justify Judaism to the Greeks and Romans, as
being a Greek-like religion, and therefore respectable (Greek culture was the
most respected culture of the ancient world and Greek was the standard language
of cultured people from many lands), resulted in a superstitious, pantheistic
religion, encoded in a foreign tongue, which unfamiliar "Word[s]" were claimed
to be God encoded, God incarnate in dust and darkness, the hollow thump of an
empty book on a cold, stone pedestal, the prattlings of a priest's demands for
more gold and for more lands.
The phenomenon of "semanticology", or worship of the "Word" as God, finds its
parallel in the numerology of modern relativity theory, which is based on the
language of mathematics, cannot be explained in the common tongue, and requires
a priest for translation, which translation never reveals the
"counter-intuitive truth" of the false mathematics.
Much of the current mess began when Galileo Galilei attempted to convince the
Roman Catholic Church that we should abandon the Ptolemaic system of planetary
motion, which asserted that the Earth was at rest in the universe, and that the
planets and Sun turned around the Earth, in accord with Aristotle's assertions.
Galileo asked us to accept the "Copernican" system, which placed the Sun at the
center of the Solar System, with the Earth moving about the Sun.
Galileo devised numerous ingenious experiments to show the effects of inertia
and momentum, in a naïve effort to prove to the Church that it was possible for
the Earth to move without our being aware of it, as Copernicus had argued.
Galileo sought to convince his readers that uniform motion was undetectable.
These notions of uniform motion are today called the "Galilean Principle of
Relativity", but Copernicus, and seemingly countless others, had illustrated
them before Galileo, using the example of a ship and sailors in uniform motion,
with the sailors' imagining themselves to be at rest, and imagining the banks
and trees, which passed by them, to be moving. Copernicus argued that there are
stars which are infinitely distant from us, and which would, therefore, require
an infinite velocity to rotate about the Earth in twenty-four hours, which was
an impossibility, an obvious absurdity.
Huygens formalized and universalized Copernicus' thesis of relative motion,
ignoring the dilemma of the infinite velocities, which result from the
rotations of frames of reference. Newton, then much later Carl Neumann16 and
Heinrich Streintz,17 would reopen the question and assert that rotations in
some sense reveal absolute space, through the disclosure of the absurdities,
which absurdities are common in relativity theory.
Huygens asserted that motion was purely relative. He showed that if persons on
a passing boat exchanged pendulums with persons standing "still" on the shore,
the only effect observed was the relative motion of the pendulums, with no
absolute velocity observed or understood in the interaction between observable
happenings.
Newton attacked Huygens' relativism. Newton, very much a mystic, revived the
earliest of Christian pantheistic beliefs in the material universe as God,
moving with breath, and set the world back more than a thousand years. Newton's
God, he called "absolute space" and "absolute time", and "absolute" carried
with it many religious and authoritarian connotations in those days.
The supposedly divine nature of space, time, motion and "actions at a distance"
(gravity and magnetism) discussed in Newton's day bear a striking resemblance
to the numerology of the "modern" general theory of relativity. [Spinoza, Philo
Judæus and Heraclitus
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
believe to exist physically, objectively.
Physical laws are objective and presume that there is substance which inspires
consciousness and the relations of consciousness. Physical laws presume that
there are soldiers marching past Plato's cave, casting their shadows on the
walls of the cave. Poincare's approach, which in effect denies objective
reality, is spiritual and not physical. Poincare's approach is J. B. Stallo's
early spiritual approach to Physics.
Physical law is the codification of our beliefs regarding what we assume is a
material reality, which is separate from our consciousness, and which reveals
itself to us in consciousness as the relations which our consciousness is.
Therefore, the effort of the theory of relativity to state that a given
observer's space and time are absolute to the observer, though relative to
another observer's space and time, which are absolute to that particular
observer alone, but not to the first observer, can only be resolved with an
absolute substratum, objective reality interpreted through a human perspective,
which fact Albert denied, admitted, denied again, flip-flopped over and never
resolved.
It is far better to give up on the mental abstractions of continuous time and
space in the pursuit of understanding Nature, as did Des Cartes and Leibniz, or
at least they made an enormous effort to do away with them.
If you take a picture of one side of a tree, and I take a picture of the other
side of the same tree, the two photos will look different. Should we then
conclude, that because the pictures look different, there was no tree? Should
we then conclude that the tree only existed as relations in each observer's
mind and has no reality of its own? Relativity theory would ask us to accept
both intolerable assumptions, based on the discrepancies of appearance between
our photographs. Relativity theory would assert that the tree does not exist,
only our conscious images of it, even though there supposedly is no it, exist,
and relativity theorists would then set out axiomatically to find a set of
equations which would convert my observations into yours, and then assert that
the equations are reality and not the tree. They would fail to appreciate that
they were proving that the tree was absolute, for, if it were otherwise, and
the tree was not absolute, their equations would have no basis in fact, as
there would be no tree to transform into the comparison of two perspectives. A
sensible person realizes that the very existence of the objective tree and the
objective observers compels that the two photographs be different in
appearance.
***
There is no means to measure either space or time, other than as relations
within consciousness. There are no rigid rods of space we can lay on the plane,
which will measure "immaterial space". Space is abstract and space is
continuous, it can't be made into packages. As Stallo pointed out, continuous
space is conceptualized and is neither intuitively nor objectively real. Many
confuse the psychological sense of permanence conceptualized space tends to
inspire, with an absolute reality, but they are unable to offer a marker in the
universe which would stipulate its coordinates. Neumann's "Body Alpha" has yet
to be found, and until it is, absolute space remains a divine mystery. However,
conceptualized space can serve as a substratum for framing images, but to call
this space of assumption, absolute or relative, is to deprive words of their
meaning.
Though bodies have extension, their extension is limited. Though the mind
intuitively creates images of limited extension in the form of objective
bodies, which the mind either senses or imagines, the mind does not intuitively
create continuous space. Continuous space is conceptualized from the observed
limited extension of bodies, which is both intuitively and objectively
understood. The mind conceives of the extension of body, and abstracts that
conception into limitless extension. We call this abstraction through the
conceptualization of limitless extension, "continuous space", but the concept
exists more as a wish, than as an actual image. One cannot imagine continuous
space, but one can pretend that the command to imagine the finite into the
"infinite" holds some meaning for the purposes of communication. Here, as with
the concept of inertia, the human being pretends that the wish to know, which
wish promptly reduces to the absurdity of a want of a sufficient reason for it
to be otherwise, though it is never defined, can be styled as "knowledge".
Real rods, material measuring rods, are made up of moving, material particles,
which are never at rest relative to each other, let alone relative to any
observer. Said parts of the material rod are in perpetual motion relative to
everything, including each other. Material rods measure material rods, and do
not measure immaterial continuous space. Two material rods which agree with
each other in length, may appear to expand and contract in sync relative to
other material rods. Which rods are to be adjudged to measure immaterial
"space"?
The limited extension of bodies defeats the conceptualized continuous extension
of abstract space, and vice versa.
How can limited material (rods) be used to qualify and quantify that which is
adjudged to be immaterial and continuous (space)? How can mass measure space?
What equivalence does length or form, which are discontinuous, have to space,
which is continuous and without form or length?
No two material rods may occupy the same space at the same time, and therefore
their equivalence in occupying immaterial space can never be ascertained. No
two rods can ever be said to be equivalent measures of "space". A solid rod is
only an abstraction arbitrarily made by consciousness of unrelated parts, in
constant relative motion to each other. A "rigid rod" is an illusion of words
and nothing more. And yet, the special theory of relativity is founded upon the
assertion that rigid rods equate to measurements of "space", which is presumed
real and not abstract. It is a surreal theory.
For a measuring rod to be in relative motion, it must pass through time, and
therefore must completely change, as nothing survives a passage through time.
What we conceive of as the unchanging, rigid rod will be different in every
sense from what it was the moment before, the very next moment, and so will we
as observers of it. Hence, a measuring rod cannot move, it can only change into
something entirely different. In moving, it ceases to be, as does the observer.
It is the psychological illusion that a body can move and remain the same,
among other misbegotten precepts, which allows the mythology of the theory of
relativity to survive. While many argue over priorities and absolute versus
relative, few today realize that the reasoning of the theory, in whatever form
it has taken, that of Zeno, Lorentz, or that of Poincaré, is fundamentally
flawed in its assumptions.
A clock which ticks off time is no longer the same thing from one time to
another, though we may delude ourselves into believing that the abstract body
we fictively follow through imagined time is the same body and is at rest. The
"sub-atomic particles" (motions) which compose the "clock" are constantly
changing form and position with respect to each other. The clock itself is but
a human abstraction consciously associated with permanence, where in reality
there is no permanence. A rotting banana is a clock, and yet no part of what
was survives the journey to what is.
Nothing exhibits duration. Change precludes duration. A clock cannot remain at
rest, nor can it move, and it certainly cannot exhibit duration. If a clock
cannot exhibit duration, how can it measure time? How could a measuring rod of
zero length measure meters? How can a clock of zero duration measure minutes?
We must, of course, realize that, in the theory of relativity, which compels us
to believe in resting, rigid rods and synchronized clocks, we are dealing with
pure fantasy, and not physical theory.
If, on the other hand, we presume an æthereal substratum, as it is commonly
understood, one must wonder in what sense it endures. Is substance merely forms
in the fluid of space? If so, in what sense does such fluid space endure, or
even exist? The only resolution to this dilemma is to reexamine the concepts of
time and substance. In questioning the nature of substance, we must ask
ourselves, what sense has the arbitrary distinction between homogeneity and
heterogeneity?
Ernst Mach wrote,
"Volkmann advocates an absolute orientation by means of the ether. I have
already spoken on this point, but I am extremely curious to know how one ether
particle is to be distinguished from another. Until some means of
distinguishing these particles is found, it will be preferable to abide by the
fixed stars, and where these forsake us to confess that the true means of
orientation is still to be found. [Citations Deleted]"22
Mach's comment is equally valid to "space" and æther. The "fixed stars" offer
no way out. As Mach indicated, points cannot be established in a quiescent
æther. Nor can points be established in an intangible space, as no points can
be distinguished in the continuous pond. Here, the four-dimensional manifold of
space-time deludes us. The axes only exist on paper, and without paper and pen,
they become entirely meaningless. In order to establish coordinates, one must
perceive or conceptualize body, which is limited in extension. Though the axes
of "space-time" appear as limited in extension in that they are drawn as lines,
they are a group which represents continuous extension in every sense, for if
we "blow up" any line in the map, it fills the space. The division into axes,
or lines, of what is in reality a conceptualized continuous space deceives the
mind into believing it can distinguish locations in continuous space, when it
cannot, and it is wrong to call it "multi-dimensional space-time" for it is
without dimension or scale. The mind can only distinguish crossed lines as
points, and then only abstractly, again wishing that there be something, where
nothing can be actively imagined. Lines are bodies limited in extension. Planes
are bodies limited in extension. Space is not composed of limited extension in
any sense, and cannot be created from limited extension. The phrases, "point in
space", or "point in quiescent æther", are without any meaning. They cannot be
distinguished.
What is æther? Is it substance, or merely the continuation of existence, per
se? All indications are, and all well-known explanations state, that the æther
is only known to us as waves in itself, and, abstractly, as extension in
imagination. Thus, the æther is merely the forms it assumes, which forms are in
constant flux. As such, substance, per se, loses its meaning. Substance is form
and form does not endure. So, what meaning has homogeneity? If substance is a
change of form in a fluid, and forms are distinguishable, is the fluid of
space, which contains infinitely various forms, homogeneous, or heterogenous?
If flows are made up of waves, or waves are made up flows, what real
distinction can be made between flows and waves? If no distinction exists
between waves and flows, then in what sense does the æther exist? It is known
to us only through its effects. The effects are distinguishable. The physical
exists as change. The æther is ill-defined as the seat of that change, and the
appellation "space-time" is entirely meaningless as representing a static lack
of change and a deceptive image of a manifold which is a continuous whole. We
use bodies to distinguish bodies, and not "space-time".
One means to unite the artificial distinctions and eliminate endless identities
is to adopt the Greek notion of Logos. Force is change, substance is change.
This mass-energy equivalence was well-known to the Greeks and appears expressly
in Heraclitus and Aristotle. Albert's myths obstruct our understanding and set
us in quicksand.
We must realize that time is a conscious symbol for change, and not a quantity
which can be measured. How can any quantity of duration be equated to any other
quantity of duration? What has ever been observed to endure, and what conscious
state has ever endured to witness it? "Where does time go when time passes?" is
an oft asked question. Where does new time come from when we pass through time?
If I die today, will I be dead longer than if I die tomorrow? What unaltered
meter stick will mark the increments? What clock lasts forever? What measuring
stick stretches across the universe? In what sense does non-existence embrace
existence? If non-existence does not embrace existence, then my being dead has
no existence, and there is no duration to my being dead--there is no duration
to any form of position, regardless of the number of dimensions, and no thing
can last any longer than any other thing. Since all thing perish in their
ephemeral being, there are no clocks to measure "time". The Gestalt linkage of
comparing a conceptualized map of "now" to a conceptualized map of "was" should
not be confused with a group of enduring physical dimensions, as no such
markers have been found outside of the imagination.
A clock, if it is a physical body, is a completely different jumble of moving
particles from moment to moment, which we, through abstraction, qualify as
being the same instrument of measure. In reality, a clock, therefore, measures
nothing other than complete change, with no interval of duration measured or
implied.
In consciousness, a door is different from a pendulum clock. Does the complete
difference between a door and a pendulum clock represent a measure of duration?
If not, then why does a body, a clock at time A, measure time when some
completely different body, which we mistakenly identify as being the same
clock, is different in appearance at time B? A supposedly constant clock cannot
pass from moment to moment without suffering a complete change. We merely,
abstractly, view it as being the same, because we give it the same name, while
acknowledging that it has completely changed.
How could one ever hope to synchronize time, other than to search out two
bodies which look the same and which we expect to look the same again, even
after both have changed? How, against what standard, is the "interval of
duration" to be calculated?
It is important to realize that the appearance of a clock (for example, the
hands or numbers on the face of a watch) is not a divinely given marker of
time. It is a visual image we school ourselves to obey mentally as somehow
equivalent to our sense of order.
Appearance, too, is relative. Every object has a different appearance from
every other object, and every observer views the same object differently and
receives different sense information, as a matter of necessity, whether or not
the second observer is presumed to be at rest in the imagined rest inertial
reference frame of another observer. Were it not true, there would be no two or
more observers, but one observer with two or more names.
The similarity of appearance of two clocks cannot be construed to be a position
in the fantasy world of time, for, if it were so, no such position could ever
be observed, as no two clocks are one clock, identical in appearance forever.
Therefore, we don't synchronize time, but generalized and abstracted
appearances, false expectations, and titles, when we "synchronize clocks".
Every object which we abstractly imagine to move through time, cannot move
through time. Change is complete from one moment to the next. Duration has
never been observed, only change has been observed.
We believe in time because we apply the same image and name to something which
is no longer the same, a clock. In our consciousness, time exists as the
relation of before and after, and in our consciousness, a clock is that which
exhibits changes which symbolize before and after through the fictional
duration of the changing clock. If the known universe undergoes constant
change, how can there be any rate to the passage of time other than CONSTANT?
How can one declare that one clock appears to run slower than another? How can
there be any quantity of duration other than NONE?
Time is an illusion of consciousness, which separates "memories" from sense
perceptions, both of which co-exist. The universe appears completely different
from moment to moment.
***
Since both time and space are taken to exist, and further since their existence
manifests itself in the mathematical transformation of units, the Einsteins'
relativity theory is merely a restatement of the mythology of absolute time and
space and is not truly a relativity theory at all. It denies the relations upon
which the mind relies and substitutes mythological absolutes, which supposedly
then regulate the mind. It transforms these fictitious absolutes through
mathematical ratios from one observer to the next with perfect consistency.
Relativity theory paints a cathedral, which we all can see from various
perspectives, and though relativity theory denies that the cathedral is really
there, we all can see it, and if it weren't there, it would not be there to
view from different perspectives.
The Einsteins' relativity theory compels us to pretend: pretend the definitions
represent reality, when they do not; pretend there is a logical procession from
premise to conclusion in the theory, when there is not; pretend the theory is
supported by experiment, when it is not; pretend that absolute time measured
relatively is relative time and not absolute time, though it is absolute, as
defined; pretend mathematical transformation is physical transformation, when
it is not; etc. . . . Relativity theory is a game of pretense. Pretend Albert
Einstein holds priority on the theory, when he clearly does not. Pretend it is
logical and physical, when it is illogical and delusional.
The same relations of conception, which are proposed in the special theory of
relativity, are apparently caused physiologically by hashish (see the section
herein from Carpenter) and schizophrenia. It is perhaps a drug and madness
induced theory. There are more reasons which would indicate a strong influence
from madness and drug use on the theory, which will be explored in future
volumes. This is not meant to imply that the Einsteins derived relativity
theory from Albert's suspected schizophrenia, or that they used drugs, but that
others, who were mad, and/or drugged, penned the words the Einsteins later
repeated.
***
Let's examine the non sequitur of the pretend "inertial reference frame", an
ancient misconception dating back at least to Leucippus and Democritus,
reconstituted into a sensible structure of the extension of bodies and not
continuous space by Des Cartes, only to be destroyed again by Newton, Poincaré,
who knew better, and the Einsteins, who may not have known better.
The concept of an inertial reference frame is a fallacy in any system, the
Greek's or modern relativistic. Herbart assumed, long ago and without proof,
that a point, which "point" is itself an assumption, can exist and must of
necessity rest in a motionless space of its own. Why this should be so, I don't
know. Perhaps he believed in complete, universal equilibrium. The fact that the
universe is in perpetual change would tend to imply that points, if they do
exist, exist in a space in which they are in perpetual motion, and are subject
to a pressure differential on all sides, if a point can even be conceived of as
having a "side". Again, we must pretend that the wish for there to be a "point"
equates to the actual image of a "point", which image cannot be formed in
consciousness, but is understood by nodding one's head and agreeing to the
"point".
The pretend inertial reference frame is based on the mythology of "uniform
motion" found in Aristotle, Galileo and most since, including Albert. Uniform
motion has never been observed, and can never be proven. In the special theory
of relativity, the uniform motion of a body, relative to an observer, who is
assumed to be at rest relative to his or her coordinate system, is, circularly
defined, theoretical, unaccelerated, relative motion in a straight line. The
laws of mechanics must hold good in the "reference frame", which is never the
case in reality.
A theoretical example of this impossible requisite to the theory would be a
train running perfectly straight down the x-axis of your pretend inertial
reference frame at a perfectly constant speed, in which train the laws of
mechanics hold good, and of which each object "at rest" must be composed of
unmoving parts at all levels. Since a clock is a uniform motion, it cannot
"rest" in any inertial frame and yet be a "clock". No such "inertial system"
has ever been observed. That the entire special theory of relativity is built
upon this hypothetical delusion of an "inertial system", which directly
contradicts experience, must indicate to all reasonable people that the theory
is really not valid science, but rather, is childish fantasy and numerology. It
is a pretend theory, spoken of with reverence, and, therefore, awe inspiring to
those who pretend it is rational.
We are asked to assume an "observer" at "rest", from his point of view,
"observing" bodies in "uniform motion" relative to him, which scenario never
occurs in reality. Of course, we are not allowed to ask, "Just what is an
observer?"
If I am an observer, every observable part of me is in motion relative to every
other part of me. How can I be at rest, while I am in perpetual motion with
relation to myself? What one point of me am I to designate arbitrarily as I?
Why should a make-believe point arbitrarily affect my perceived dimensions of
space and time and the simultaneity of events in my world? Why should my world
be different from every other universe? How can other universes exist in the
same space and time as mine? Why should a pretend inertial reference frame
extend through that which does not exist (space and time) and displace that
which is perceived (matter and motion)?
What relation has my conscious construct of relations to do with pretend
physical space, which is presumed to be mutable depending on the relative
motion of my consciousness? It is as ridiculous as it would be if relativity
theory asked us to assume that the size of a mountain in a picture a camera
pressed against my eye, when I am one mile from the mountain, takes of the
mountain, depends upon the Dow Jones Industrial Average for last May. And if
that average is up, the mountain will be twice as large in reality as it would
have been if the Dow were down, but in any event the size of the mountain in
the picture will remain the same. And no matter that no verifiable prediction
has been made, the relativity theorist would claim victory and state, "You see,
the mountain is exactly the size I predicted based on the Dow! Furthermore, due
to the contortions of space-time, the picture will look the same no matter what
the Dow was, but the mountain will have changed, and its changes will be
imperceptible due to the 'principle of relativity'. Try to disprove what I
say!"
Time is defined through the synchronization of clocks. Therefore, to define
time in an inertial system requires that every point of the frame be occupied
by a relatively resting clock, thereby rendering two systems in uniform motion
an impossibility, for one system would displace the other. In this universal
world of material clocks, we would still have to transmit light through the
material clocks in vacuo, a mutually exclusive proposition. The clutter of
clocks would obstruct the very light synchronizations, which they are meant to
provide.
How a clock can be resting, or a point, let alone be a resting point, is never
explained. One need not allude to the extreme of a universe of resting clocks
to dispel the myth, for a single resting clock, a single unmoving point cannot
occupy the same location as a moving point. Therefore, no comparable
measurements can be made between frames in relative motion--no light
experiments between frames can be performed, other than in self-contradicting
abstraction. The mathematical Gestalt linkages required in the pretend world
the special theory of relativity compels, the extension of dimension from
variables, have no valid place in physical theory.
A resting point cannot be a clock, for a clock must be a uniform motion--there
can be no "resting clock", such is a contradiction in terms.
***
Suppose we fantasize, as relativity theory requires us to do, arbitrarily,
about an abstract point, say the abstract center of mass of my body, to serve
as the reference point, or origin, from which we map out an "inertial reference
frame" of observation, the familiar xyz and t axes of geometry--Cartesian
coordinates, in non-Cartesian pseudo-space and pseudo-time. Now we have the
planes and extended space with which to construct the fantasy of a
three-dimensional model of an observer's varying world. I can now supposedly
draw a picture of the world based on points in xyzt.
If, however, I spin around on my heel while looking up at the stars, am I
really to believe that I have caused the heavens to turn through my space? How
can it be that the stars on the periphery of my vision accelerate to
superluminal velocities, merely because I choose to spin on my heel? What
physical connection is there between the stars and me? What fan blades are
churning through the universe, simply because I spin on my heel? Why is it that
if I spin on my heel, it doesn't take much energy to stop me, but would take an
unimaginable amount of energy to stop a spinning universe?
At this point, the pseudo-relativist will cry foul, and state that, while my
spinning on my heel may represent my rest frame of reference, it does not
represent an inertial frame of reference. It is here that the pseudo-relativist
reveals his or her belief in absolute space.
That the special theory of relativity distinguishes "rotations" and other
"accelerations" from "inertial reference frames" is proof that said theory
incorporates a belief in absolute space. The pseudo-relativist must justify
this assertion of rest beyond the perceived rest of the consciousness, which is
observing its world. The pseudo-relativist must persuade the observer to ignore
his or her sense of rest, and interpolate "real rest" from the many motions the
observer witnesses, and based on arbitrary interpretations of what those
observations should mean. The consciousness must convince itself of some
interpolated rest into universal motion. This theological and/or metaphysical
rest, interpolated from motion, is absolute rest. Furthermore, the observer is
not only required to interpolate "rest" into motion in the case of "rotation",
but in every real instance, for no two observed points are ever at rest
relative to each other in the observed universe, and sans Neumann's "Body
Alpha" no such assertion of mutual rest can be argued, other than Petitio
Principii, arguing for a given case of mutual rest, by artificially defining
that given example as mutual rest.
The special requirement for "rotation" is an entirely artificial ad hoc
requirement made arbitrarily to account for the obvious failure of the theory
to express pure relativity. Based on the premises of the theory, the "rotating"
observer must, with equal validity to any other real situation, observe that
the stars are spinning through empty space at superluminal velocities. If the
theory is to be consistent, then there can be no observations of rotation,
other than objects rotating in the observer's space. The observer is always at
rest and must conclude that everything he or she observes is in relative motion
to him or her. The ad hoc requirement that the observer interpolate rest into
the observed motions within the universe is a requirement that he or she
abandon the restrictions of the theory, and assume an absolute space. It is a
statement that the inertial reference frame only exists in the form of absolute
space and its inertial transformations, and, therefore, the special theory of
relativity is a fallacy.
Any mythical model of space-time is in no way a reflection of what we observe
in reality, nor does cause and effect in the fantasy model of a pretend
"inertial reference frame" agree with the real world.
There are some
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
subsequent volume to this work, which will treat the pre-Newtonian period.]
Newton confessed that he had not a single clue as to what caused gravity, and
hinted that it should be understood as a divine force, the will of the
all-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, All-Mighty, or as the mundane action of
an intervening medium, Huygens' æther. It was a peculiar pattern of Newton's,
to criticize, then copy. He railed against Des Cartes' vortical explanation of
gravitation, then returned to it in the form of Aristotle's notion of an
intervening æther, finding its natural place in the plenum, with fire rising
and feet, falling.
There is, perhaps, more to the story. There were veiled threats and religious
hairs beings split on the bald steps of the Church in the political debate
taking place between Continental and British philosophers. Both sides were
under the sword, and the thin thread which restrained the heavy sword of
persecution, if not execution, was precariously pinched between the slimy
fingers of a fickle and fanatical church. Both sides (principally More versus
Des Cartes and Newton versus Leibnitz) were forced to adopt sophism as the only
defense, for they could not speak freely. I assume that both sides required
that their more sophisticated readers read between the lines, while unfairly
demanding that their opposition's words be taken literally. These were not
stupid, fanatical, or ridiculous men. These were men who were inhibited by a
climate of persecution and ridicule. They weren't gods, but they weren't as
silly as their religious tirades tend to indicate.
In order to provide a non-religious understanding of gravity, the private
Newton plagiarized the works of Aristotle, Des Cartes, Hobbes and Huygens, when
Newton wrote to his friend Bentley of the æther of space (æther is the water,
which fills the swimming pool of space, and which supposedly carries light
waves), in virtually identical words to Aristotle's, Des Cartes', Hobbes' and
Huygens' earlier writings, and described gravity as an Aristotelian
displacement of æther, which æther supposedly also conducts nerve impulses in
the body, the attenuated humor of sense experience.
The public Newton seemingly opposed a belief in æther, in that Newton permitted
Roger Cotes to deny that space was an æther in the preface to Newton's
Principia, and to aver that a belief in the æther was an occult belief--bearing
with it the threat of torture and death from an insecure and intolerant Church.
This denial of the æther was quite significant, in that it left space as
nothing other than a meaningless supernatural superstructure from which to
judge relative motion, rendered position purely mathematical, and not physical,
which was obviously an irrational and anthropomorphic conclusion. How can
something be nothing? How can nothing be something? This theory further
presumed that gravity acted from one body upon another, with no intervening
medium, except, perhaps, the will of supernatural forces, and only then, in a
divinely inexplicable way, leaving gravity a divine mystery, and those who
would pursue its causes, heretics, sorcerers, witches and general consorters
with the devil. This pattern of negative labeling continues today, when
authorities stigmatize those who question institutional, dogmatic
beliefs--those who would pursue the physical processes of gravitation and
electromagnetism.
Questioning the cause of gravity was like questioning the logic of the Trinity,
in some minds (Newton did both, and somehow got away with it! But he was
increasingly censored and misrepresented as he grew older.). This weapon of
alleging heresy was a very real threat in the world of Galileo and Newton, and
both those on the Continent and in England were in danger of torture and death
should they venture from the dogma of their respective established churches. It
is no coincidence that Newton published his Principia in 1686, soon after the
death of Charles II. It was the year of the death of Royal Catholicism in
England.
Leibnitz accused Newton of occult beliefs, claiming that the notion of action
at a distance--universal gravitation, was a supernatural love call--an occult
belief. Continental philosophers also pointed out that Newton's belief in
universal love was found among the Greeks (in Empedocles), and was, therefore,
less than original. Cotes was perhaps reacting to the Continent more than he
was genuinely expressing Newton's beliefs, when Cotes called a belief in the
æther an occult belief. For every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction, even if it is less than sincere!
Newton's Principia was almost entirely unoriginal, deriving its first
principles from Aristotle, via Hobbes and Des Cartes, and its kinematics from,
among many others, Kepler, Huygens and Leibnitz. It was a theological and
metaphysical work devoted to finding God in the form of absolute space and
time. It was a step backward into theological forces, which beliefs are today
so pervasive in our language and images, that we fail to see that they are
religious, and not physical, beliefs. Our concept of motion changed from the
anthropomorphic insistence on perpetual tension between resistence and impetus,
to the mystical delusions of inertia and force.
The Royal Society claimed priority for Newton's stolen ideas by denying the
æther, which served on the Continent as the universal substratum for the
equations of mechanics, and by copying the math, while providing no physical
explanation as to what was occurring physically so as to justify the math. Pure
mathematics is not a physical science, but a rational language of
symbols--entirely abstract and physically meaningless. In Newton's myths,
Physics was to become an algebra without a geometric reality behind it. To add
insult to injury, Newton claimed that it was foolish to try to understand the
equations, which he stole from the Continent, on the grounds that a true
scientist should "form no hypotheses!" This is a Baconian belief, that only God
knows what is happening, and therefore it is better not to try to understand to
much, lest we offend God, which approach evolved into the anti-human,
anti-scientific, political bureaucracy of "positivism" and worse still,
"logical positivism". Newton claimed priority for Continental ideas by denying
physical causes, while pirating equations and mathematical procedures. Albert
Einstein would later do exactly the same, only in his case, even the modus
operandi was unoriginal, having been pioneered by Newton and reduced to an
absurdity by the positivists, Comte and Pearson.
Newton thought that Huygens' principle of relativity was metaphysical nonsense.
Newton believed that all motion was displacement in the absolute space of God's
body. He asserted that Huygens' principle only held good in a system devoid of
absolute acceleration, but that God materialized whenever one body accelerated
relative to another, as rocking a boat on a still lake disturbs the waters.
Under the lamp of acceleration, claimed Newton, God could be seen, and Newton
devoted his entire work, the books of the Principia, to the vain search for
God's body--absolute position.
According to Newton, Huygens' principle of relativity left unclear the nature
of relative motion. What if one body is subject to force, while another body is
not, or vice versa? Force is the unseen hand of God pushing mass through His
lungs! Purely relative motion is not possible, claimed Newton, because it is
demonstrably different depending upon the application of force to one body, or
to the other.
Des Cartes believed that the transference of motion, what we consider today as
the exchange of energy, was a reciprocal process, in anticipation of the law of
action-reaction, whereby contiguous bodies affect each other equally and
oppositely when they transfer motion,
"For the transference is reciprocal; and we cannot conceive of the body AB
being transported from the vicinity of the body CD without also understanding
that the body CD is transported from the vicinity of the body AB, and that
exactly the same force and action is required for the one transference as for
the other."18
Newton's laws of motion are Aristotelian and are a reaction to Huygens and Des
Cartes, making a distinction without a real difference, semantically
substituting sufficient reason, or the want thereof, with the meaningless term
"God". Des Cartes set forth his relativistic notions of motion in his
Principles of Philosophy, Part II. Henry More stated, in reaction to Des
Cartes' law of reciprocity,
"If I am sitting quietly, and someone else, moving a thousand paces away from
me, reddens with fatigue, it is certainly he who moves and I who rest."19
Henry More ignored Des Cartes' stipulation that the transfer of
motion-energy-momentum is a reciprocal process of contiguous bodies, including
the "inertia" of bodies moving through the æther. Therefore, More's
counter-argument against Des Cartes is a fallacy, for he is arguing with a
red-faced strawman, but More's argument is quite legitimate in defeating the
supposed reciprocity of the special theory of relativity, in which relative
motions are inexplicably congruous and incongruous, inexplicably representing
universal inertial systems.
In Newton's myths, if God impels force against body A and does not change the
forces acting on body B, then body A accelerates relative to God, or absolute
space, they do not accelerate relative to each other, per se, but one
accelerates relative to God and hence to all other bodies! If, on the other
hand, God impels force against body B and does not change the forces acting on
body A, then body B accelerates relative to God, or absolute space, again, they
do not accelerate relative to each other, per se, but one accelerates relative
to God and hence to all other bodies! Huygens' myth of reciprocal relativity
only holds true when two identical bodies collide and part with an equal and
opposite reaction, or when God refrains from changing the forces which hold all
bodies in relative motion through God's body. The special theory of relativity
fails for the same reasons as does Huygens' principle of relativity, as will be
shown, and, in its many forms, remains a theory of absolute motion, ultimately
reducing motion to the fixed absurdity of motionless space-time.
To summerize: The 'Principle of Relativity' in Galileo's writings was an effort
to convince the Roman Catholic Church to abandon the Ptolemaic system and adopt
the "Copernican" system. "And yet it moves!" Galileo sought to demonstrate that
we, together with the Earth, could move through the heavens, and yet be unaware
of it. Huygens generalized the principle. Newton objected to Huygens'
conclusions, on religious and other grounds. This is clear in Newton's
Pincipia. Newton asserted that the relativity principle was a fallacy.
Newton felt that all force was absolute, the action of God. Our confusion as to
the source of force is due, according to Newton, to our movements relative to
God, our utter lack of absolute rest. They were all under the spell of
Aristotle, with his ontological and religious laws of motion and creation. For
Newton, God reveals himself as the antithesis of the principle of relativity.
God is seen in the force required to bring about acceleration. God again hides
from us his name, when uniform relative motion draws a veil over the face of
God, and the waters appear still.
***
Gravity is a process of motion, not a mystical force. Gravity does not depend
on the unobservable structure of abstract space-time. "Attraction" is explained
by the intervention of a medium, the æther, and is the result of other motions,
pressure differentials at the body, not the cause of them. If space is presumed
to be a fluid, then the motions of bodies in that fluid jar the fluid and cause
wave disturbances to propagate through the fluid of space, the æther. If space
is a fluid, then bodies displace that fluid, and are therefore buoyant in that
fluid. Under such conditions, and in an unlimited universe, the waves bodies
create in space would then cause other bodies to be attracted to the source of
the disturbance through the process of kinetic buoyancy,20 whereby the waves in
space would displace heavy bodies towards the source of the wave, ceteris
paribus. "Inertia" and "acceleration" are easily conceptualized through the
kinetic buoyancy of bodies in space. They are wave forms, directions and
pressure differentials in a medium.
If, in a low gravity environment, you fill a container with water and buckshot,
the buckshot is denser than the water and displaces it. If you disturb the
water, say by striking the side of the container with a hammer, the buckshot,
which is denser than the water, will be attracted toward the hammer as though
the hammer were a magnet and the buckshot were iron. This process can only
occur if space is indeed an intervening medium.
Pulsations resulting from the dilatation of vortex atoms might also create
forces of attraction, as may cavitating bubbles in space. George-Louis Le Sage
demonstrated that if ultramundane, attenuated particles rush through space in
random directions, gross bodies would shield each other from the bombardment,
resulting in a net pressure of attraction between mutually shielding bodies. It
is objected to this theory that intense heat would result, which would melt the
planets, but the force has been demonstrated in gases, and exists, whether or
not it is the cause of gravity.
Newton, seemingly, publicly claimed that space was not an intervening medium.
The conclusion many came to was that Newton believed space was God, and that
God's will, or Spirit, was the force behind gravity and magnetism, so-called
"actions at a distance". Of course, this body of God must be presumed to be
absolute and incapable of relative motion. Therefore, absolute motion was
motion relative to the body of God, or absolute space.
Many had a sharp reaction to Newton's apparent sacrilegious mysticism, and
relativists did not wait for Albert Einstein to be born to object to the idea
of absolute space and time, most especially in the form of the Divine. There
was an immediate repudiation against Newton and his beliefs, and the term
relative continued to reign over absolute.
Kant and Carl Neumann reawoke an interest in the concept of absolute space, and
Hobbes suggested that the æther far from major bodies is quiescent. Fresnel
proposed that the æther only participates in the motion of bodies to a limited
degree, and Michelson set out to find the relative motion of the Earth in the
supposedly still sea of æther. However, relativity was the generally accepted
belief throughout recorded human history, right up until the Twentieth Century,
when absolutivity again raised its theological head, under the deceptive
appellation, the "theory of relativity", which theory is indeed a wolf in
sheep's clothing, in part responsible for the diminution of our living
environment.
***
Albert did not take credit for the concept of relativity, per se, and does not
deserve credit for it. Albert's taking credit for the concept of relativity
would be like Bozo's taking credit for the concept of a clown, or Newton's
taking credit for the awareness of gravity. Believe it or not, people were
aware that things fell, before Sir Isaac was even born, and the ancients
suspected that all things mutually attract.
Various relativity theories have evolved through time. Nothing is absolute, of
that you can be relatively certain, but not absolutely certain. Relativity
theories were and are theories of consciousness, theories of the relationships
of mental images. However, to project the conceptualization of internal mental
relations onto external Nature is anthropomorphic and wrong. Relational models
are utilitarian tools of measurement, which measurement is a subjective
process, not reflections of physical reality. The absolutivity of the special
theory of relativity--so-called, is wrong and is destructive.
Albert seems never to have fully grasped that fact. He babbled in bits and
pieces of what others (chiefly Hume, Mach and Poincaré) had written, but never
made sense of it. He and Mileva initially adopted an absolute substratum to
serve as the framework for inertial reference frames, the absolute substratum
of the "resting system", and the Einsteins' theory requires one, but he
continually denied any of the absolutes, which necessarily follow from absolute
geometric form, as he was required to do in order to maintain any semblance of
his priority, but which resulted in so-called "paradoxes" which are in fact
irresolvable contradictions.
Max Planck stated,
"Einstein's recognition of the fact that our Newtonian-Kantian conception of
space and time possesses in a certain sense only a relative value because of
the arbitrary choice of the system of correlation and methods of measuring,
affects the very root of our physical thought. But if space and time have been
deprived of their absolute qualities, the absolute has not been disposed of
finally, but has only been moved back a step to the measurement of
four-dimensional multiplicity which results from the fact that space and time
have been fused into one coherent continuum by means of the speed of light.
This system of measurement represents something totally independent of any kind
of arbitrariness and hence something absolute."21
Albert claimed priority over Lorentz by positivistically asserting that the
æther was superfluous. People tend to forget that Poincaré held priority on
this point, along with countless others, but, after the fact, Albert claimed
priority on this point, then returned to the æther, then later asked that the
word æther be banished from science. Lorentz acknowledged the need for a
substratum, and Albert's supporters claimed priority over Lorentz by denying
it, just as Newton's supporters claimed priority for Newton over the
Continental scientists by denying the existence of the æther.
Relativity theory ca. 1900 traveled backwards in time to Tertullian's and
Newton's mythologies of absolute space, and became, by definition, a largely
supernatural, numerological explanation of reality put forward by FitzGerald,
Larmor, Poincaré, Langevin and Lorentz, and changed but little from that time
onward.
Though the theory in the hands of Poincaré claimed to discount "absolute space
and time", it did not do so, but merely codified absolute space and time
through the process of mathematical transformation (whatever that nebulous,
purely mathematical term may be interpreted to mean, when applied to physical
reality) into a system whereby the inertia of mass increased with the relative
velocity of a body (whatever that purely conceptual term should mean, when
applied to observed form) to become infinite at the speed of light, which
velocity remains constant regardless of the speed of the source of radiation.
Thus, the speed of light is constant, and serves as a universal speed limit to
mass.
Which is to say, that if I am in my pool of space, and a boat moves through my
space, though it shrinks, it grows heavier the faster it moves relative to me,
until, at the regular speed of waves in my pool, it becomes infinitely
resistant to acceleration and no force can cause it to move any faster. In a
way, this makes sense, if you assume that the boat is itself composed of waves
in the pool, which Lorentz did assume, for he believed matter to be
electromagnetic in nature. But from the point of view of Poincaré, which Albert
later repeated, it is an unjustified, positivistic view. Lorentz was almost
stating that if you squeeze a balloon filled with air until the rubber sides
touch front to back, the air inside the balloon will push the top and bottom of
the balloon into an infinite length, which happens to all waves at Mach I, on
paper.
Fancy gobble-dy-gook which signifies nothing but the fact that human beings
have a tendency to seek out fancy words in lieu of understanding, and in time
complicate that which is simple to the point of speculating as to how many
angels may dance on the head of a pin, though no one alive and sane has seen an
angel. . . . The truth is that the equations set the speed of light as Mach I
for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, of which we are supposedly
composed, and that at Mach I, two dimensions try to compress into
one--mathematically, and when you try to squeeze an area, say a rectangle, into
a barrier, say a line, the line grows to infinite proportions. Two dimensions
cannot be compressed into one, and hence mathematically, a body cannot travel
faster than light speed, according to the axiomatically derived equations.
However, mathematics presumes an identity between and among units, which only
exists definitionally as the Gestalt linkage promoted in the mind of the
mathematician by the rules to which he or she pretends.
This speed limit, celeritas, would only be true if there were a substratum for
electromagnetic mass operating in a quasi-static medium. Therefore, Albert's
(Ludwig Lange's) system resolves all time, space and simultaneity back into
absolutes in the mythology of an observer's rest world, or inertial system,
which, in Albert's rendition, is truly the transformed frame of the
hypothetical, quasi-static, rigid æther, or substratum, and in the
Lange-Minkowski scheme, space-time as uniform translation.
Within the inertial reference frame, bodies can still move faster than wave
speed with respect to each other, for two waves can approach one another, and
their relative speed will be twice their wave speed. Since the system requires
a substratum to give the transformation meaning, and further since
"superluminal", faster than light relative motions do occur, all velocities
being conceptual and not real, Mach I is exceeded, and the proclamation that
nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is meaningless, unless there
is the presumption of Mach I and a medium. The true speed limit is then seen to
be Mach II, or the head on collision of two rays of light, but the relativists
would object that if you rode one of the waves ( you can't quite make it there,
but nevertheless. . .), you would still measure the light approaching you to be
traveling at Mach I.
The theory mathematically eliminates simultaneous events, and they can work out
a mathematical scenario whereby you cannot observe anything to move faster than
light, relative to you, even if a third party sees you headed for a Mach II
collision (or close to one). They just claim that you weren't where you were
when you were there, in another observer's inertial reference frame. I do not
exaggerate here, and I am not using hyperbole. That is exactly what the special
theory of relativity claims.
So, we have Lorentz claiming that there is one true inertial reference frame,
the æther, which transforms magically and mathematically for each person who
moves through the æther in uniform motion of translation (unaccelerated motion
in a "straight" line), with measuring rods contracting and clocks slowing, and
Poincaré claiming that the æther is superfluous, that no two events can be said
to be simultaneous (for information cannot move instantaneously, and one can
never truly determine the privileged frame of light, and thereby determine the
true addition of velocities for the conveyance of information, and one must
supposedly operate under the assumption that celeritas, as a definition,
equates to distance and time, even though we never measure distance or time
with light, but only conceptualize them from light in abstract models), and
that space and time exist for each person independently and transform magically
and mathematically into every other person's space, time, and simultaneity,
with measuring rods representing space, and clocks, time. Albert repeated what
Poincaré had earlier published, but accepted the privileged frame notion of
Lorentz as the true geometric shape of a body at rest, with moving bodies
attaining a kinematic shape, but preserving their true geometric shape in the
frame of reference in which they are in relative rest, thereby, supposedly,
precluding the possibility of detecting which frame is the privileged frame in
which light has its true velocity, and in which absolute simultaneity could,
therefore, be measured and recorded, for the true, relative velocities of
bodies to light would then be known, which possibility Poincaré religiously
excludes, in principle. The three systems of thought differ only theologically
and metaphysically, with Lorentz' being the most sensible, Poincaré's the most
synthetic, and Mileva and Albert's walking the razor's edge between fancy and
fiction, bleeding profusely into both buckets with their pseudo-scientific,
numerological slop.
All this nonsense came about, just so that we can accept the notion that light
waves travel at a constant rate independent of the speed of the source of the
light, which is more easily and sensibly understood by the fact that all waves
travel at the same rate in the same medium. It doesn't matter how fast you
throw a rock into the pond, the ripples still move at about the same speed. In
the case of light, we discount the possibility of dispersion.
To repeat, Lorentz advocated absolute space and time, transformed for each
moving observer, and Poincaré claimed that only transformed space and time
exist in Lange's inertial systems, but never told us from what they are
transformed, and all the while admitted that space and time are fictions of the
mind which are adopted in science for the sake of convenience. Albert simply
repeated what Lorentz and Poincaré had published earlier. Poincaré called his
dancing space and time, "relative space and time". Albert repeated the refrain,
without comprehending it, and then claimed priority for it.
***
As numerous authors have pointed out (Max Planck among them), there is an
insurmountable problem faced when trying to substitute "relative" space and
time for "absolute" space and time. The special theory of relativity,
Poincaré's theory, proposes an absolute time and space transformed
mathematically for each observer, and gives this network of absolute time and
space the false and deceptive appellation of relative time and space.
Though Poincaré, and later Albert, insisted upon the use of material apparatus
(rigid rods and unmoving clocks) to define the dimensions of an inertial
reference frame, he also insisted, that in so doing, he was defining time and
space, which was a non sequitur and a fallacy, and Poincaré knew it, but Albert
seemingly lacked the depth of understanding to realize it. The dimensions of
material, rigid rods and the ticktock of a clock, as represented and understood
in consciousness as physical reality, do not equate to space and time, which
are understood by consciousness to be methods of establishing order,
conceptions of the extension of physical bodies, reinterpreted through
abstraction into continuous extensions called "space" and "time", a separate
class of perception from material. Space and time are conceptualizations, and
not something real. Material is limited in extension and is known to
consciousness to be real. Space and time are unlimited in extension, cannot be
subdivided, and are known to consciousness to be purely abstract.
Relational perception is built upon the presumption of substratums. The
substratums are the fabric of the human mind, which frames the image, and the
assumption that the organization of images in the framework of the mind equates
to an objective substratum, the form of objective reality. This is a critical
part of relativity theory, which is masked by the jargon and abstract examples
presented. Just as we separate memories from sense perceptions,
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
relative to observers and not as relative to the universe taken as an
integrated whole. Albert claimed that superluminal velocities are an
impossibility, and yet, a star can be on one side of my observed universe one
moment, then on the other the next, the same star which was to my left is now
to my right--a inconceivably fast motion, and by Albert's accounts, an
impossibility!
How is it that the light which was approaching me from positive x is now
approaching me from negative x? If we remove the artificial, ad hoc
restrictions, and follow the prescriptions of the theory, the theory falls
apart.
Beyond the special theory of relativity, with its inconsistent, ad hoc
restrictions, the concept of purely relative motion is a fallacy. How did the
star move so far in my space, so fast, and why does it seem to be in the same
relation to everything but me? Why do things further away from me accelerate
faster and travel farther than things closer to me, when I spin on my heel? Why
do I appear to spin on the axis of my heel at the same rate relative to each of
them? Why don't the stars travel backwards in time when I spin on my heel?
After all, they are traveling faster than the speed of light! Why do the stars
appear to move such vast distances relative to me, the more distant the star,
the greater the distance traversed, but I don't move relative to them, and I do
not rotate faster relative to any given star, be the star nearer or further
from me?
Relative motion assumes a reciprocity which is demonstrably a fallacy. The laws
of mechanics never hold good beyond kinematic abstractions. Relativity theory
compels an absolute space to serve as the basis for the pretend inertial
reference frame in uniform translation of rectilinear motion, so that it can
arbitrarily exclude "rotations" from "inertial reference frames", while
including interpolated systems of "rest", all of which compels an absolute
space, and it is, therefore, not a relativity theory, but a relational theory
with an absolute substratum, which substratum is revealed through empirical
experimentation for suspected inertia--the special theory of relativity is a
circular argument for absolute space. The simple world of the humble observer
laying fictitious rigid rods end to end, ends up in the ad hoc madness of
chasing after a vain interpolation of absolute space, just as it did in
Lorentz.
Light which propagates in empty space at a universally constant speed, which
speed is independent of the motion of the source, can only axiomatically do so
in absolute, resting space. Consider Albert's 1907 paper,
"That the supposition made here, which we want to call the "principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light", is actually met in Nature, is by no means
self-evident, nevertheless, it is--at least for a system of coordinates in a
definite state of motion--rendered probable through its verification, which
Lorentz' theory based upon an absolutely resting æther has ascertained through
experiment."
"Daß die hier gemachte Annahme, welche wir ,,Prinzip von der Konstanz der
Lichtgeschwindigkeit" nennen wollen, in der Natur wirklich erfüllt sei, ist
keineswegs selbstverständlich, doch wird dies -- wenigstens für ein
Koordinatensystem von bestimmtem Bewegungszustande -- wahrscheinlich gemacht
durch die Bestätigungen, welche die, auf die Voraussetzung eines absolut
ruhenden Äthers gegründete Lorentzsche Theorie durch das Experiment erfahren
hat."23
Only after Lorentzian geometry is hypothesized can one assume that celeritas is
an invariant in all systems in (rectilinear) uniform motion, and this
assumption must of necessity proceed from a hypothesized absolute space, for
uniform motion is uniform relative to absolute space, and must pass the
standard tests for inertial motion, as in Newton's Fifth Corollary. Lorentzian
geometry is by no means axiomatic, but only rendered probable if confirmed by
experiment.
Only when the addition of velocities is not of consequence, can the assumption
that light speed in all directions equates to distance and time axiomatically
follow from the premises of mechanics. Such is only the case in theoretical
absolute space, in which space the velocity of light is defined to be a
universal constant, which velocity is independent of the motion of the source,
unless Lorentzian geometry and the validity of Maxwell's equations for absolute
space are first hypothesized, and then celeritas is only assumed invariant in
those rigid systems which move uniformly to absolute space and in absolute
space itself. Two systems in uniform motion with respect to each other, do not
necessarily move uniformly relative to absolute space and non-rigid systems
which are accelerated disintegrate, as perceived by co-moving observers, while
maintaining Euclidean geometry in the inertial system through which they
accelerate.
Gradually, relativists (who are in fact "absolutists") dropped Albert's belief
in absolute space and adopted Everett's, Lange's, Poincaré's and Minkowski's
beliefs in uniform translation of motion between inertial reference frames. The
modern requirement that one must empirically test for inertial motion
completely obviates any purely relational basis the theory might otherwise have
had. Space again artificially enters into the special theory of relativity as
the artificial arbiter of inertia, just as it did in Newton's myths, which
myths regarding the contradiction in terms, "force" of "inertia", Boscovich,
Pasley and Mach have long since discredited.
The Einsteins' 1905 paper begins with the assumption of light propagating in
absolutely resting space, the "resting system" at an invariant speed,
celeritas, which is to say, it accepts the validity of Maxwell's equations for
absolute space. The paper then proceeds to "moving systems", which are in
uniform motion with respect to the "resting system", at rest in empty space,
just as in Newton's Fifth Corollary. Such "uniform" motion only has synthetic,
a posteriori meaning in a kinematic theory, when it proceeds conceptually from
the assumption of absolute space. Two bodies may have uniform motion with
respect to each other (though without the Gestalt linkage of a tacit
substratum, the concept is still meaningless, for uniform motion establishes
absolute standards of direction, distance and time), but in no wise be in
inertial motion. Uniform, inertial motion is only axiomatically and
kinematically definable when it proceeds from the concept of absolute space,
most especially since "inertia" is foolishly taken to be an attribute of
non-physical, empty space. How this non-physical, Godly space should produce
inertial effects is never explained, but is seemingly Aristotle's a priori
argument that there just isn't any good reason why it shouldn't be so--other
than the fact that inertial motion has never been observed.
Even in the modern, post-Poincaré-Minkowski mythology, the world is absolute in
four dimensions, with space being the potentiality and actuality of a
tri-dimensional sub-manifold and time being a non-defined something, a false
belief in "uniform motions"--"relatively resting clocks", seemingly "periods"
or "instants" of conceptualizing space, which isn't quite space in its
qualities, but "equal spaces traversed in equal times"--circularly defined.
Nothing moves in this four dimensional manifold of "Space-Time", which is more
aptly dubbed "Nothing-Moving". It is absolute from the beginning of time
through to the end. Observers are sentient in 3 dimensions of space and in
time, but inexplicably are not sentient in 4 dimensions, seemingly because we
"remember"--pretend that positions are divisible from their four-dimensions,
and, further, because we "measure" to know, instead of knowing. However, the
universe is without humanized dimensions, such that the absolutist mysticism of
the special theory of relativity is vacuous--literally and figuratively. These
myths of the special theory of relativity compel us to accept that which they
compel us to deny. Quadri-dimensional "Space-Time" does not exist without that
which it obviates, 3 dimensional space and time. The rules in the rule book
exist only in abstraction. Telling someone how a television set works creates
images in the mind of the listener, which have no physical reality. Telling an
observer how his or her observations compare to another observer's observations
does not create a physical, absolute world, nor is it science to pretend that
the rules in the rule book mirror an absolute world, which cannot, by the
rules, be observed. Pretending that an absolute world, "Space-Time", exists,
but cannot be observed, but only understood through obedience to absolute,
abstract and irrational laws, is religion, not science, and in the case of the
special theory of relativity, the religion is "numerology". The
pseudo-relativists worship the sun god, "Celeritas", Minkowski's "mystic
formula" for time, Mileva and Albert's "universal constant". No true scientist
speaks of universal constants, for no such knowledge can ever be attained. How
can we measure the one-way speed of light at all points and times of the
universe? We cannot, currently, measure the one-way speed of light, at all.
Ebenezer Cunningham wrote,
"With Minkowski space and time become particular aspects of a single
four-dimensional concept; the distinction between them as separate modes of
correlating and ordering phenomena is lost, and the motion of a point in time
is represented as a stationary curve in four-dimensional space. The whole
history of a physical system is laid out as a changeless whole."24
It is perhaps wrong to discuss mathematical models as though they signify
physical forms and mental processes, but one must plunge into the numerology
and metaphysics of relativity mythology, if one is to understand where it errs.
In reality, motion is not relative to observers, but involves a pressure
differential, which involves preferred classes of reference frames, and hints
ever so strongly that space is a medium which conducts "waves" and which
exhibits the properties of buoyancy, as Budde averred. Des Cartes provides us
with arguably the best definition of motion, not as Galileo's artificial change
in location through time, which "locations" and "times" do not exist outside of
the human mind, but Des Cartes' motion as the relation of a body to its
immediately surrounding medium, the pressure differential of which it is, which
interaction is change--existence.
That there may exist a principle of equal and opposite action-reaction between
interacting bodies, does not justify the fallacy that motion is the relation of
events tracked through time in a reference frame. For bodies to act and react
with each other, they must impinge on each other with some "force". Bodies
which are separated by some distance, and which do not impinge on each other
directly, do not "move" relatively to each other in the sense of
action-reaction, even if we see that the relationships in our visual image of
them changes.
Motion is not a change in location, there are no locations, through time, there
is no time, but is a pressure differential in the medium of space. The special
theory of relativity renders absurd both the concept of relative motion in 3
dimensions and time, and the concept of immobility in 4 dimensions, if these
models are supposed to correlate to observation, for it is the fallacy of non
sequitur to assume that simply because intervals are invariant in "Space-Time",
Space-Time is the absolute world. We have to pretend to the changeless One of
"Space-Time", and find it only in rules. It is natural to us to make this
pretense, for we believe that the Self is the One of a lifetime, though
changing, but it is in no observable sense one, but is always many, and we do
not equate the experiences of a lifetime to one experience. We simply, tacitly,
pretend that one Self experiences them. Newton's space and time are the
pretense that one God experiences the motions of all bodies, causing them
through His will. Minkowski's Space -Time is the pretense that all experience
is one experience, but the universe is then defined as experiences, and the set
of One is artificial and represents a group of many given a categorical name,
One. The word "elephant" is a human symbol. Taking all elephants as the
category "elephant" does not reduce the many to one. The word, the symbol, is
simply an arbitrary rule for the sake of communication. The category has no
physical reality.
My spinning on my heel and thus creating the illusion of rotating the universe
around me, does not build up energy throughout the universe in the absurd sense
of action-reaction, such that should the universe hit an outside object, it
would strike it with infinitely greater force if I were spinning on my heel,
than if I were not. Categorizing my sensibilities, while I turn, as a
"reference frame" does not cause the universe to move.
One (such as Mach) might argue that it would take just as much energy to stop
the spinning universe relative to me in the above stated scenario, as it would
in any other conception of the same relative motion, and "stopping the universe
from spinning" can also be conceived of as causing the universe to spin with
me, which would again be mistakenly equating relative motion with
action-reaction. For, so he claimed, the universe is given to us but once, and
we should conceive it with an economy of thought.
Due to the law of the conservation of energy, the two cases are not the same.
To stop the universe from spinning, to cause it to spin with me, would require
the addition-creation of energy, which we, perhaps mistakenly, perhaps not,
preclude. My spinning, or ceasing to spin, does not result in, or necessitate
the creation or destruction of energy. There are no levers outside of the
universe to lift it, nor brakes on its wings to slow it. Due to the
conservation of energy, relative motion is a fallacy. There is no reciprocity
to relative motion beyond that in our imaginations.
It requires less energy, and energy which can conceivably be supplied, to
impart the relative motion by my spinning or ceasing to spin, than it would to
cause the universe to spin about me while I remained unaccelerated, or to stop
spinning, while I remained unaccelerated. Grabbing the sun in a sling and
causing it to rotate about me is not the same as my spinning on my heel, and
Nature knows this. Space holds the Sun more firmly in her grasp than space
holds my body. The existence of couples in free space obviates purely relative
motion. I can't, if coupled to the Sun, cause it to move, for the force I would
apply to the couple would move me and not the Sun.
This is also made apparent through the effect of kinetic buoyancy. Fill three
similar tubes with a comparatively homogenous fluid. Place in one tube a ball
which has the same average density per volume as the fluid itself. Place in
another tube a ball of greater density than the fluid, and in the third tube
place a ball of lesser density. We now have two accelerometers and an
anti-accelerometer! The tube with the lighter ball will react to positive
accelerations as the tube with the heavier ball will react to negative
accelerations. The tube with the neutral ball will largely not be affected by
acceleration. The denser ball will be attracted toward the source of
acceleration-disturbance. The rarer ball will be repelled from the source of
acceleration-disturbance. The neutral ball will remain largely unaffected. What
is acceleration, if not a state of buoyancy and/or the polarized motion of a
wave group in its medium?
This is somewhat equivalent to Newton's argument for absolute space, though it
does not compel or require universal absolute space, only "inertia", but
inertia as a property of a medium, not as an artificial property of "empty
space" or "dead matter". There is a distinction between the dislocation of
bodies, the change in position of bodies amongst themselves, as imagined in the
relations of human consciousness, and the physical transference of motion
through impact--truly through continuity.
The argument that motion is purely relative, as it is in our imaginations, and
the physical existence of inertia, cannot be reconciled given our present
understanding of force. We ought not to confuse the principle of
action-reaction with the principle of relative motion, which relative motion
resides only in the abstraction of mathematical space. To do so is numerology,
which the facts obviously prove false. If I walk past a rock submerged in a
still lake, my walking causes the rock to move through my abstract mathematical
space, but does not cause the rock to move through the still waters of the
lake.
My taking a step towards a mountain requires less energy than a mountain's
taking a step towards me, yet, to me as an observer the relative motion is the
same in both cases in my abstract mathematical space. The mountain and I move
towards each other. Some substratum, in the sense of an intervening medium,
seemingly must be involved in the difference, and the hypothetical, static
"Space-Time" of relativity theory must be a fallacy. The Nature of this medium
is the subject of pure speculation. [The general theory of relativity requires
a medium to keep bodies at bay, though its advocates dispute this. The general
theory of relativity requires that gravity remain a force, though its advocates
refutes this, for, mass acts on the nature of space, which is taken to be a
medium, the medium which separates bodies and holds them in place, and which
action to change that medium is the action of a force. This force is no less
occult than the old Newtonian "action at a distance" theory of gravitation, and
is actually equivalent to it, with a slight modification of the expected
measurements for known motions, a modification made long before Albert's
published work of 1916 by Hilbert, and yet earlier by Gerber.]
Remove any supposed obstacle, and still the mountain floating in "empty space"
will require more force to accelerate toward me, than I will to accelerate
toward it. How, if space is relative to an observer's frame of reference, can
that occur? Why is it in one instance that the mountain is overcoming space, an
act requiring energy, and in the other instance, is overcoming my space but not
requiring energy to do so? In both circumstances, according to the theory of
relativity, the mountain is overcoming my space, since I am the observer, or my
center of mass is somehow an observer, in some inexplicable fashion (unless we
admit of absolutes!). Why is any actual difference between the same relative
motion ever observable, if it is space which is relative, and not simply
conceptions which are relative? Why do I objectively feel accelerated should I
move toward the mountain, but not when it moves towards me? Why do I
subjectively see the same motion in my conceptualized mathematical space?
It is no wonder the pseudo-relativists must white wash over the Metaphysics of
their theory, for their theory is not a relativity theory, but pure and
unabashed absolutism! They hold up the shield of positivism to preclude any
discussion of the Metaphysics of their theory, and again resort to pretending,
for they pretend that there is no metaphysics in their theory, when in fact it
is entirely composed of Metaphysics, and is a numerological theory and not
science. Since relativity theory is purely metaphysical, and further since
pseudo-relativists refuse to discuss Metaphysics, they preserve their theory as
a dogmatic institution, which cannot be disturbed at its foundational level,
for its basis in Metaphysics is expressly off-limits.
Metaphysically, modern theory mistakenly confuses the exchange of motion
through impact, with the conception of relative motion based on observation.
Where does the energy come from to move the universe ten feet through my space,
when I walk ten feet across a room? How is it that some relative motions
exhibit force, while others do not, if all motions are merely observer-based,
relative motions? If the universe is limited, how can it be other than
absolute?
Suppose we tie a rope around the mountain. The mountain and I are presumed to
be hovering in free space. I grab the rope and pull the mountain towards me.
Why will I observe that the rest of the universe seems to move relative to me,
but does not seem to move relative to the mountain (to any appreciable degree)?
Suppose the mountain pulls the rope (figuratively speaking, of course). I will
again observe that there appears to be a preferred frame, that of the rest of
the observed universe, which appears less affected relative to the mountain and
more affected relative to me, when the mountain and I move towards each other.
Again, if instead of a mutual action, some outside force is applied, the
relative motion between the mountain and me will differ in terms of the energy
needed to bring it about, depending upon which body is forced toward the other
body. The true frame of "inertia" is independent of observation and involves
fluid space, which is revealed in acceleration, and which implies a dynamic
substratum. Place the three tubes with fluid, and spheres, inside (the
apparatus for detecting kinetic buoyancy), on the two distinct bodies, and the
motion of the spheres with respect to the tubes will reveal which body
"accelerates" in the "space" of its "medium". Even if forces proportional to
the mass taken as particles are applied to each volume element of the mass,
effects will arise which disclose the acceleration, in any non-ideal, real
circumstance.
Any relative acceleration reveals a preferred frame of reference between two
bodies. If two space ships drift through free space in relative rest with
respect to each other, and passengers in both are able to float freely in their
respective craft, with no apparent tendency toward the walls of their
spaceship, then they begin to accelerate relative to each other, it is possible
that in one of the craft, passengers will be thrust against a wall of their
spaceship, while in the other, no such effect occurs. Why should that be so, if
all motion is merely relative and no preferred reference frame exists? The
uniform translation of space is no less an absolute concept than the absolute
concept of a singular space at rest, most especially when celeritas is taken as
an absolute and limiting velocity, which results in absolute "Space-Time", and
the invariance of Gc.
If, however, the space ships are identical (an impossibility) and they push off
from each other, there will be reciprocity, and each will experience the same
acceleration, ceteris paribus. This reveals that relative motion is limited to
the impossible, abstract "ideal" of two identical bodies engaged in an equal
and opposite reaction. We should not be tempted to presume an ideal here, and
suppose that the ideal is the universal law, but rather, reason would have it
that the universal law is that an identity between distinct bodies never
occurs, which is to say, A is never equal to B. The universe exists as a
principle of inequality, and, therefore, mathematics is only successful as a
measure of inequality against an artificial standard, the fantasy of the
absolute. This should never be forgotten.
Physics does not address relative motions of observer-based displacements.
Physics addresses the displacement of masses in the fluctuating, limitless
whole (an odd phrase) of the universe, which is why forces are observably
variable in the same relative motion, though they ought not be according to the
precepts of relativity theory. The fact that the same relative motion, a
mountain and a man moving toward each other, requires entirely different forces
under different actual motions, indicates that purely relative motion is purely
a fallacy.
Does the fact that purely relative motion is a fallacy imply an absolute space
of rest or of uniform translation? No, it does not. It implies that motion is
not a change in location through time, nor the changing relations of perceived
bodies, per se, but that motion is a pressure differential independent of time,
space or absolute position (what that pressure should be understood to
constitute must include the basic premise of change). A body is moving, not
because it is changing location or relation relative to an observer, but
because it is subject to uneven pressure in its position among its surrounding
medium, or is a wave form itself within the medium, the distinction being
largely semantic and conceptual, not real.
Though relativity theory requires us to imagine purely relative motion,
observation is not a cause of physical phenomena. The myth that observation is
the cause of reality held back scientific progress throughout the Twentieth
Century. My reader will find more on this explanation in a subsequent volume of
mine to this work, where I will discuss how the general theory of relativity
inhibited us from pursuing the mechanical cause of gravity with our full
resources, and may well have closed our eyes to the destruction of the healthy
field structure of the Earth--the potentially devastating phenomenon of
æthereal pollution.
What would happen if the Earth suddenly stopped turning, relative to the vast
majority of the observed universe? Would I, as a body on the Earth, be
unaffected? If not, why not? If I am now at rest relative to the Earth, why
wouldn't I remain so? Why would the Earth move relative to me, if it were to
stop turning relative to the rest of the universe? What implications does
Rowland's experiment hold, as analogy, if nothing else?
My eyes lie on certain points of xyzt and my hands on others. My center of mass
is the origin of the axes. How do I measure distance on x? With rigid material
rods, as the special theory of relativity suggests? The special theory of
relativity would demand that the rods not only be rigid, an impossibility, but
also that they be at rest relative to my center of mass (which point is only an
abstraction, a mental fiction, and not a physical reality), a further
impossibility. Furthermore, the special theory of relativity requires that the
laws of mechanics hold good in the measured system of coordinates, a situation
which can only exist in interpolated abstraction. The theory is a fantasy.
Nothing is at rest.
No point of any known rod is ever at rest relative to my hypothetical center of
mass. No point on any material rod is at rest relative to any other point on
the same material rod, and the rod itself is but an image humans mentally
generate arbitrarily of a number of unrelated bodies, motions and relations.
No two material rods are known to agree, or can ever be proven to agree, in
length or stability through time. We have no way of knowing what stability
through time should mean. We have no way of knowing if two rods, which are
separated, would agree if placed in the same space. We have, therefore, no
means of determining what same space is. We have no means to judge if any rod
measures space, or what the measurement of space should mean. Space itself is
merely a hypothetical group of dimensions, which cannot be imagined in the
absence of physical bodies. Space is presumed continuous, and, therefore, to
subdivide it is to deny its presumed nature.
Rest can only be conceived of as an abstract and infinitesimally minute point,
and it is irrational to extend this rest point, which itself cannot be
conceived, into the pseudo-dimensions of an interpolated pretend inertial
reference frame, when it is observed that every point of the so-called "rest"
inertial reference frame, other than the pretend origin, is in motion relative
to the origin. Dimension only has meaning with regard to bodies, and the
pretend inertial reference frame is not a body, and if it were a body, it would
displace the universe, which is an absurd notion.
A more apt appellation for the mythical "Space-Time" of the theory of
relativity would be "Nothing-Moving", for nothing moves in space-time,
according to the theory. The jargon of Minkowski replaces a dynamic
tri-dimensional mathematical model, with a static four-dimensional model. They
are truly identical, and only the titles used to name the parts differ
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
titles and the illusive images which the titles may generate in those who allow
themselves to be mystified by the absurd mathematical transformations.
Space must be "nothing" in the theory, for, though there are
pseudo-explanations of the transformation of bodies and measurements of change
in the theory, there is no explanation as to what happens to continuous "space"
or continuous "time" between inertial reference frames and there is no
definition of either independent entity, nor is there a non-circular definition
of "Space-Time". The vast majority of the dimensions of an inertial reference
frame are composed not of material, but of "empty space". Identifying this
"empty space" semantically as a sum of "events" in "Space-Time" literally says
nothing about observation. The only apt definition of Space-Time is thus
"Nothing-Moving", which fits the static nature of the claim, and makes clear
the absurdity of the theory.
The theory remains the theory of Lorentz--a static æther of changing
psychological relations. After Poincaré, it is a pantheistic, metaphysical
theory through and through. It is the simile of the cave, and is as primitive
and religious as the cave dwellers. We are led to believe that God is a
computer, who "transforms" static Nothing-Moving, mathematically, into our
perceptions, which are delusions of nothing into something. Only it is worse,
for there is nothing casting the shadows on the walls of our consciousness,
nothing but nothing represented in numbers, numbers which symbolize units,
units of nothing, for light's speed is used as a measure, but is itself only an
abstraction, the division of non-existent space by non-existent time, which
"division" cannot even be conceived, but is argued through analogy to that
which can be conceived, such as a board cut in half. The speed of light is a
number, a symbol, not a physical thing. The shamans of relativity theory paint
bones with numbers and toss them through mathematical transformation onto the
cave floor as oracles to the future. And the future, for them, is made of
numbers. That, my understanding reader, is pure numerology, and is greatly
destructive to our understanding of physical processes.
The gurus of relativity theory make use of political ploys to discredit
legitimate refutations of their pet theory, while avoiding rational
argument--while actually celebrating the irrationality of their theory. They
argue the weaknesses of their theory as though they were strengths. They
stigmatize those who would dare to criticize the notions of their hero,
"Einstein".
The pseudo-relativists, who are in fact absolutists, role-play as experts on
Nature. They attempt to condescend to any critics, and argue that disagreement
with relativity theory is equivalent to misunderstanding, for the dogma is
their sacred gospel. Since the advent of "logical positivism", with its grossly
destructive hypocrisy, the pseudo-relativists find safe haven from the
metaphysical delusions of their theory by stigmatizing those who would
discredit the metaphysical fallacies of the theory with the currently negative
label of "metaphysician". The fact that one must address Metaphysics in order
to discredit Metaphysics eludes the dogmatic believers. Working on their side
is the sociological and psychological barrier that Metaphysics has attached to
it the negative label "nonsense", such that their already entrenched, dogmatic
Metaphysics is sacrosanct and cannot be addressed. By way of analogy, consider
that discrimination is illegal. Suppose that, in court, no one was permitted to
argue that they have been discriminated against, for, contends the defense,
discrimination is illegal!
The pseudo-relativists have the political power to mandate a specific set of
dogmatic definitions, which subverts counter-argument against the
pseudo-relativists' fallacious claims, for discussions of Metaphysics are
off-limits and stigmatized as "nonsense", and the critic must operate under
absurd definitions, which corrupt the meaning of his or her argument, and which
absurd definitions sponsor the false beliefs of relativity theory. The pastor
cannot be accused of stealing from the congregation, for thievery is a sin, and
the pastor pursues virtue, by definition, despite his actions! To discredit
"Space-Time", the critic must first use the term, and in so doing submit to a
litany of false images. If the critic should change the definitions of terms to
a rational semantic, he or she is immediately accused of not understanding the
theory. The only interpretation tolerated is the dogma itself, precluding
counter-argument as representing misunderstanding, even when internal
inconsistencies in relativity theory are demonstrated. The notion of science
thus becomes a political game of controlling the definitions through political
power and excluding counter-argument. To refute the theory is to step outside
of its definitions, and by the pseudo-relativists' accounts, to have
misrepresented it. All of which reduces to the pseudo-relativists' religious
belief that the special theory of relativity is correct, and, therefore, any
who would argue against it, in spite of the validity of his or her arguments,
must be misunderstanding the theory, for the pseudo-relativists pretend that
their hero's theory is irreproachable, and the pseudo-relativists have,
themselves, the fatal hubris to call it arrogance to voice the fatal flaws of
the their theory, and tilt the bowed statue of their god. They continue to
believe, and simply doubt their ability to understand or to argue the issue,
and pretend that their dead heroes would have been able to win the argument,
should they ever have confronted it.
Relativity theory affords us no explanation as to why or how our consciousness
relates to our mythological center of mass, or how or why our center of mass
should determine the length of rods we see and clocks we read with eyes as
groups of particles in motion relative to our center of mass, at velocities
near to, or perhaps exceeding, light speed relative to each other in our
fictional center of mass inertial reference frame.
Relativity theory asserts that, relative to our fictional center of mass
inertial reference frame, a moving rod should contract relative to the same rod
at rest relative to our center of mass inertial reference frame. This is a
fallacy based on false premises. No rod is at rest, all rods being a mental
abstraction of jumbles of atomic and subatomic motions, which are themselves
merely abstractions. A rod in motion is not, and cannot be, the same as a rod
at rest. A rod at rest cannot exist in time, and a rod in motion is not the
same thing from one moment to the next, but is something completely different,
which we may delude ourselves into conceiving as remaining the same. Above all,
one may ask, in what fashion can the length of rods and the rate of clocks obey
a fictional center of mass, which is unrelated to our conscious observations,
and relative to which everything, every other point of the Self and the
universe, is in motion at speeds approaching luminal?
Given the fact only a single point is at rest in an "inertial system", an
abstract point at that, the center of mass, how do we ever arrive at the
boundaries of the body from which we draw center? Do I conclude a single atom
is the basis of "body" for the center of mass of an inertial frame, or
molecule, or mountain, or planet, or solar system, galaxy or universe?
The fallacy of the inertial reference frame fails on other grounds as well. An
inertial reference frame supposes a "rest space and rest time" of xyzt
extending from the origin of the fictitious center of mass. However, there
exists no means to determine this rest extension-variation of relatively
resting uniform motion.
Take for an example the Earth. Of course, such a system is not inertial, but
then, no inertial system has ever been found. The definition of "inertial" is
circular, and contradicts experiment. To discuss real cases of inertial systems
is impossible.
We must first believe in the fictional center of mass of the abstract body we
conceive of as the Earth. What represents the rest space and rest time of this
consciously imagined, fictive center of mass? The top of a mountain seems to
turn with the Earth in a delusion of relative rest. Why not establish that
mountain top as "at rest" in the inertial reference frame of the center of mass
of the Earth, with the line connecting the two points representing the
orientation of x to serve as a basis for an inertial reference frame? But, then
again, an airplane flying at an abstract constant altitude about the fictional
equator against the relative rotation of the Earth would also seem to be at
rest relative to the center of mass of the Earth, and we could call the
imaginary line connecting it to the center of the mass the orientation of x,
with equal validity.
So, which line is x? What certainty is there that either rest space exists? How
can the same center of mass "rest" in two distinct "spaces", which spaces are
in motion relative to each other? How can "spaces" be in motion, relative to
each other? How can there be more than one "space"? Why does not each "space"
displace every other "space"? To where can one universal space chase another
universal space? How do we scale time and space, determine "straight lines",
and set one increment of unit, and one unit, equal to another? The entire
process is circular reasoning, and is never found in Nature, but this fact
seemingly gives few of the pseudo-relativists pause.
In the mountain-center-of-mass-of-the-Earth-frame, the stars in the heavens
rotate around the Earth each day--an inconceivably long voyage accomplished in
a very short time, which requires that the stars move many times faster than
the speed of light, which is supposedly impossible in relativity theory. An ad
hoc third party is required to intervene in this dilemma. An abstract absolute
space, which governs inertia, must be interpolated--universal rest must be
interpolated from universal motion. The theory is blatantly self-contradictory.
Is it merely a coincidence that the stars seem to rotate as a group about the
Earth, at superluminal velocities, or is there a preferred inertial reference
frame? Why don't some stars rotate one way, and others, the other way? Why is
there an obvious means to detect the axis of the Earth's rotation relative to
the vast majority of the universe? Relativity theory cannot explain away these
inconsistences with its precepts. If all motion is relative to observations and
observers alone, and motion has no reality, the Ptolemaic system and the
Copernican system must be reconciled in order to determine the frame of
reference of the Earth, and in order to reconcile them, a preferred reference
frame must be arbitrarily chosen, through the abstract interpolation of
absolute space. Relativity theory demands an absolute reference frame, despite
its advocates' protestations to the contrary.
The laws of probability contradict the theory of relativity. If all motions
were purely relative, the universe would be in chaos, with stars, if any such
bodies could exist, moving randomly relative to the Earth and each other. Some
stars would cross the sky in one direction, while others swam the skies in the
opposite direction, and still others would scuttle across the two-dimensional
plane of our retinas at perpendiculars to those already mentioned. The Earth
would not appear to turn at all, and the stars would not march with their
torches as an organized army across the night, but would, by the laws of
probability, likely appear as fireflies crisscrossing in the sky. The universe
would in effect be perceived as a gas of stars in Brownian movement--and it may
well be in "dimensions" (modes of order) and senses beyond our present
conceptions, for, why should there be any limitations on velocity, when a star
can dance across the universe, if one merely turns about? If relative motion is
reciprocal, and a star crosses the heavens in the blink of an eye when I turn
about, why aren't other stars doing so as a matter chance?
In the special theory of relativity, we are forced arbitrarily to choose the
rest space which yields the least motion in the relatively moving body, which
we arbitrarily assign as being at relative rest, and produces most directly
rectilinear and unaccelerated motion in the supposedly moving abstraction of
the other moving body. This is a matter of abstraction through circular
reasoning, and violates the laws of reciprocity, for it must be an arbitrary
choice made without basis in fact, and which arbitrary choice may controvert
the relative motion or rest (the distinction being entirely arbitrary) of a
third body. A space can arbitrarily be mapped to convert any observed motion
into a uniform motion, but observation indicates that no observed motion is
uniform in flat 3 space as normally conceptualized.
The pseudo-relativists are Platonic in their effort to blame the failure of
ideal models to account for observed measurements on our inability to account
for the complete ideal. They don't realize, or simply refuse to acknowledge,
that the model is not only not ideal, it is a fallacy contradicted by
observational fact. Though they pay lip service to the scientific mandate that
a model be abandoned if it is contradicted empirically, they retain their
fallacious models in spite of empirical contradiction, internal
inconsistencies; and upon observational contradiction, declare that the models
are ideal, and thus not contradicted by mundane observational fact! They
further fail to acknowledge that such a Gestalt linkage between ideal
supposition and actual fact is a metaphysical belief system, in their case,
numerological, and by their hypocritical standards, "nonsense", per se.
If a body is able to circle the fictional center of mass, which casts out its
nets as an inertial reference frame, and such is always the case, then a choice
must be made, which cannot be made based on empirical evidence, as to the
rotation and rest of the space of the center of mass of the observer. How are
we to know if what we arbitrarily assign as rest space is not a system of
coordinates which are in fact rotating through the actual rest space?
Experiments can only disclose motion, and rest must be metaphysically
interpolated into omnipresent motion. How are we to know if what we assign as
rectilinear relative motion is not curvilinear? The laws of mechanics never
hold good in any known system, in the inertial sense, and if they were to, they
would confirm an absolute space, since the special theory of relativity compels
us to presume that space is homogenous, isotropic, continuous and inertial of
its nature.
In the psychological games of the special theory of relativity, we may be
deluded by our physical make-up, being two-eyed creatures, both before us, with
an internal ear which causes vertigo in rotation, to assume that the rotation
and rest of space are obvious. And we feel all the more secure when we lay down
lines on a sheet of paper and mark them as axes, but no certainty is to be had
given the premises of the philosophy. In fact, certainty, and the theory
itself, are precluded by observational measurements. However, rotation and rest
are sensations of our psyches and not motions, or lack of motion, relative to
"space". They result in consciousness as an image which relates in some fashion
to the displacement of solid structures in the ear, buoyant in fluid, which
impinge on nerve containing structures through kinetic buoyancy. A victim of
'Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo' can attest to the fact that such a
sensation is a fiction.
Relativity theory assumes that a point which is taken to be at rest, cannot
rotate in its space [Cf. Herbart]. We cannot observe points. Any center of mass
is not a physical point, but an abstract point, unrelated to the observer as an
entity. How can an inertial reference frame be assigned to that which is not
real and cannot be observed, other than metaphysically? How can this delusional
fiction of a non-rotating, rest pseudo-point affect the physical parameters of
observed space, time and simultaneity, which are never observed in reality in
the theory, but are instead conceptualized metaphysically as correlated to the
abstract identity that celeritas, light speed, is distance divided by time? All
an observer ever observes in reality are motions relative to the observer, even
within every part of the observer itself. Rest is a psychological state related
to the construction of our psyche, and its assemblage of sense information
strongly correlated to the stimulus of our internal ear.
It is unknown and unknowable if points exist at all beyond nebulous human
abstraction. It is also beyond our ken to know if a point can be conceived of
as resting or rotating relative to space. The theory is irrational and contains
numerous non sequiturs, mutually exclusive assertions, and false premises.
Instead of science, it relies upon deceptive and anthropomorphic
representations of our conceptualizations of spatial-temporal perception.
"Space", in reality, is only the discontinuous medium immediately surrounding
the "point". Space is not the continuous universe. Points do not observe.
Points are unrelated to anything other than pressures in the adjacent medium.
Relative motion does not exist unless and until bodies interact and energy is
expressed. An airplane flying in the sky has no motion relative to me. We do
not exchange energy. There is no link between us other than in the world of
conscious images. There is no relative motion evinced. The internal image I
derive of the airplane from wave disturbances in the æther impinging upon
structures within my eyes, light waves, which are not the airplane, and in fact
are not even an internal conscious function, must not be confused with the
reality of the airplane. We humans have a great gift in that our psyche does
confuse its internal images with external facts, rendering us survival prone
and successful in manipulating Nature, but we are knowledgeable enough to
realize that the image is not the reality. Relative motion is only evinced when
there is direct interaction between bodies, not when we internally perceive a
change of relations. Relativity theory confuses impact and the exchange of the
quantity of motion between bodies, with the abstraction of relative motion as a
visual image, which abstraction reflects nothing externally real, but is our
internal mode of self-awareness. Motion is perpetual, and universal, change,
not the change of relations between abstract, hypothetical, immutable
particles, which are not the building blocks of Nature, but the mythical dust
of our imagination.
An inertial reference "frame" cannot be other than an abstract point,
discontinuous and ultimately minute, thereby reducing it to nothing. In the
sense that an inertial reference frame is discontinuous, it is matter, the
point matter proposed by Boscovich and Herbart (Leucippus and Democritus).
However, Boscovich's point matter had other qualities such as repulsion and
attraction. The inertial reference frame of relativity theory is entirely
abstract, a complete fiction of the pretend center of mass of a loosely defined
"system", which has nowhere been observed, but which supposedly manifests the
actuality of a tri-dimensional perception, and which is only theoretically
extended through potentiality into a continuous and absolute æther, deceptively
dubbed "Space-Time".
If an inertial reference frame were continuous, each inertial reference frame
would displace every other inertial reference frame, which is absurd, as there
is only one universe, incapable of being displaced. The mathematical
transformation of "events" is a metaphysical delusion, not an observable. The
link between frames is mathematical, not real, and cannot be confirmed by
observation, and is therefore not science, but pure, abstract mathematics and
poorly argued metaphysics of "what might be behind the observables" and never
"what is observable". Shuffling the event cards creates an observably different
deck, and the supposition of the same deck of intervals, existing differently
as inertial systems, is metaphysical numerology. It is the search after Plato's
"one among the many", the identity linking, in our understandings, observably
different forms. It is a vain search for "Nothing-Moving", the absolute and
unchanging world of invariance and interval.
We cannot see or know what happens in the "mathematical transformation", for it
is the function of a set of artificial rules, and not a physical occurrence. We
simply create two worlds in abstraction, inertial system I and inertial system
II, and artificially bind them together with the Gestalt linkage of prescribed
rules, pretending that mathematical processes mirror some happening in reality,
which is yet inexplicable. I can observe a lamb transform into a sheep. The
elements and processes of a mathematical transformation are an artificial set
of human rules, not extant means and ends in the observable physical world. In
a "mathematical transformation", there is a reality A and a reality B, with
nothing in between the two. In short, there is no transformation. Though
anything may be compared to anything else, the comparison is psychological, not
physical. No extant thing can be "transformed" into another extant thing, for a
thing cannot be other than itself.
Nothing in reality is transformed in a "mathematical transformation". There
are, rather, two distinct realities, A and B, and A never becomes B, nor B, A.
The so-called "transformation" does not occur or exist. A so-called
"mathematical transformation" is always a COMPARISON, and never a
TRANSFORMATION. Wherefore, the Nothing-Moving of so-called "Space-Time" is a
Gestalt, numerological delusion and not a physical reality. Space-Time is built
of artificial mathematical rules, and is not physically real, nor
psychologically tangible, but hovers as a vague wish in the imagination as a
pretend, though not seen, linking of two or more distinct images, and the
linkage is Gestalt, not continuous, for there is no mechanical processing, but
a gap filled yet unfilled by artificial rules--definitions. The
pseudo-relativist simply pretends that this artificial Gestalt linkage
symbolizes absolute reality.
Since Space-Time is supposedly composed of at least four dimensions, and each
dimension is of infinite proportions, Space-Time also requires an infinity to
at least the fourth power, again displacing the universe at least three times,
which is absurd. The abstraction of a four-dimensional manifold should not be
confused with physical reality. The freedom of motion found in these multiple
dimensions is psychological and not physical. [See: Boscovich, "Hence, the
number of other points of space is an infinity of the third order; & thus the
probability is infinitely greater with an infinity of the third order, when we
are concerned with any other particular instant of time."] Things exist of
themselves, not as parts of a manifold. Stating that this or that has position
in the abstract is going beyond what is observed, into what is conceptualized,
metaphysically, numerologically.
The theory is built on "mathematical transformation", which remains undefined
in terms of physical reality. No two "units" of anything in reality are the
same. Points are undefined. Calculus is based on curves and derivatives, which
do not exist in reality, the bending bow of an unseen numerological god
crossing arrows across a surreal plane. What is a "mathematical
transformation", and what has it to do with reality? What is an "inertial
reference frame", and what has it to do with reality? How can constants be
added to the coordinates of one frame to accomplish a uniform change of scale
through the multiplication of the units of time and space by a quantity to
another frame? Under such conditions, the "frame" is a delusion of words, where
variables are confused with dimensions, resulting in an anti-dimensional
absolute in which light has no motion.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
subject to mathematical transformation, while proving to us that they are not.
If an observer witnesses a body in motion contract and its clocks slow, he or
she must ask himself or herself, "what happened to space and time outside the
body?" The same observer witnesses at least two sets of bodies and clocks
"moving with respect to each other" and can suppose his or her "inertial
reference frame" to be composed of either, for, through "mathematical
transformation", they are supposed to be equivalent. Obviously, it is variable
bodies and clocks which are assumed to contract and dilate, and not continuous
space or continuous time. Obviously, space and time are not transforming, but
rather bodies and clocks are transforming, otherwise, the mathematical
transformation would be without meaning, as the units would not be equivalent.
Since the theory requires reciprocity, relative space and time do not exist,
for there are no parameters to either. Only bodies are limited in their
extension and they supposedly mutate relative to a continuous space based on an
observer's perspective, which perspective is a conceptualization based on
imagined measurements made with fictional instruments, and does not signify an
observation at all, but a grand delusion.
"Observers" in the special theory of relativity do not observe! They
conceptualize the information a false God, the pseudo-physicist, spoon feeding
them fantasies, "tells" them to form into an image which is not observed, but
created through the mathematical rationalization of irrational assertions. The
mandated quasi-geometry of the pretend light synchronization procedure cannot
be performed. It is an impossible, self-contradicting delusion.
An inertial reference frame is not observed nor measured, but interpolated into
the known universe of perpetual and universal motion as false "rest", which is
not observed or measured, but is a mental fiction, which directly contradicts
observation and measurement. A physicist should not rely on the delusion that a
physically contradicted model is an "idealization". Nor should a physicist
pretend that measurements are being taken according to an impossible light
synchronization procedure, when no such measurements have been, or can be,
taken.
Albert's version of Poincaré's theory is in no way different from Lorentz'
theory. It is apparatus which supposedly contract and slow in uniform motion
through absolute space in either theory, not contracting "space", nor dilating
"time", despite the knowingly false appellations of Poincaré and the deceptive
jargon of those who followed after him.
If the process of "mathematical transformation" is presumed to be valid, then
there must be a presumption of absolute space and time to serve as the
substratum for units. This conclusion is similar to Klein's proof that
Euclidean Geometry and non-Euclidean Geometry are projections of the same image
through a different lens, with the subject being observed remaining absolute,
in either event. Units, whether taken to be transformed or not, are always
transformations, or abstractions, of the absolute, in the theory. The
observer's "rest" units are transformed "absolute" units, or abstractions
maintaining absolute geometric form, just as are the observer's moving units in
kinematic form, lest the "mathematical transformation" of the observer's
"moving units" into the dimensions of "rest units", and vice versa, would be
without meaning. The ratio of rest to moving abstract units, viz. the
mathematical transformation, is a formal definition of the absolute. It is a
set of metaphysical, numerological quasi-Natural Laws. It is the
quantification, and its existence is the qualification, of the absolute of
geometric form, be it the "resting system" of Lorentz and Albert, or the
"Space-Time" of universal translation of Poincaré and Minkowski.
That one object is shorter than another, either in length or duration,
indicates that both are abstractions of the absolute, which is without units.
This is the opposite of reality, but it is nevertheless the process of the
special theory of relativity in practice. The absolute is not to be taken as
either shorter or longer, rather, the absolute is tacitly taken as
justification for the comparison. This is so, because no two things are the
same, except as they compare to the presumption of an absolute standard.
Relativity does not exist. Comparing one shoe to another, without the
assumption of an abstract standard, is without meaning, as no two same things
can be found to compare.
Not only is an apple not an orange, but no two "oranges" are the same, nor are
two sides of the same orange the same. Therefore, we can only compare their
"weight" and "size" against an abstract absolute, which we may misguidedly
assume to be relative. We, as humans, assume that each has "weight" and then
twist the assumption of the absolute of weight into the false relative of
comparative weight. In either mental justification of our analysis, we are
making an abstraction of the assumed absolute. We are asking, "What is this or
that orange relative to what 'weight' is?" We then establish units, and
transform one orange into the other through ratios, or through "mathematical
transformation". This transformation is a conceptualized comparison and does
not occur in reality. It is a subjective comparison, and not a physical
transformation.
Relativity theory, Lorentz', or Poincaré's, does the same. Length and duration
are given as units, which are abstractions of the absolutes of continuous space
and continuous time, and then compared, or "mathematically transformed",
through ratios, into each other. The presumption that there are such units as
length and duration demands the existence of absolutes such as space and time,
which cannot in themselves exist as discontinuous units. Relativity theory does
not assert relative space and time, rather, it posits relative lengths and
durations in abstract ratios of abstractions of absolute space and time, in the
material form of the limited extension of bodies.
What is a unit of God's wisdom? What is a unit of God's justice? Wisdom,
justice, space and time have no face. They exist to us as absolutes, which we
generate abstractly as conceptions when we observe phenomena, but are not the
phenomena or even inherent in the phenomena. We can only compare ratios of our
abstractions of absolutes, if we assume such absolutes exist. That is what
relativity theory does and that is why it fails logically and is
self-contradictory. It assumes absolute space and time and then creates
abstract figures of length and duration in material bodies. Albert confessed
shortly before his death,
"I regard it as entirely possible that physics cannot be based on the field
concept, i.e. on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my
entire castle in the air, including the gravitation theory."
[In reality, outside the myths of the special theory of relativity, though, the
process is the opposite. We perceive the limited extension of bodies, and
abstractly conceive of the absolute of continuous space.]
By definition, the inertial reference frame is composed of material rods of
limited extension (though they are gross distortions of anything real) and
discontinuous material clocks--uniform motions, and not continuous space or
continuous time. This is abundantly clear in the 1905 paper, and was confused
in Minkowski's rendition, for which Albert is popularly given credit today, and
which Albert adopted in the general theory, where space becomes a mutable real
agent with a firm hold on the feet of the masses.
It is immediately apparent that no object can be said to be at rest in the
"inertial reference frame" of another. It is also apparent that pretend objects
which are in motion relative to each other can each be assumed to be at rest
relative to a consciousness--an abstract center of mass, the choice between the
two of "being at rest" being arbitrary and necessitating the establishment of a
preferred frame of reference, and contingent upon the artificial parameters of
the sense of Self. Thus, we realize that a center of mass has either no
inertial reference frame, or an absolute inertial reference frame, but never a
relative inertial reference frame.
We must also concede that no clocks or measuring rods can be known to be at
rest, as we cannot determine rest space or rest time. Rest time and rest space
then must be arbitrarily assigned to two points separated from each other, and
this arbitrary decision must equate to the determination of an absolute frame
of the observer, which conflicts with the general theory. One must interpolate
rest into motion, which is absurd.
Reciprocal mathematical transformation, in the sense of the special theory of
relativity, is a fallacy of variables posing as immutable dimensions.
***
How are we to measure time? What object remains unchanged to serve as the
yardstick for measuring time? Do we measure time with a clock? A clock is that
which exhibits change. All things are thus clocks, and yet no thing is a clock,
as no thing travels through time, but is annihilated in the passage. The fiery
Logos of Heraclitus consumes all.
Relativity theory asserts that "moving clocks" are observed to run slower, and
thus time slows. All things exhibit constant change, and thus there is no
uniform measure to change other than a constancy of perpetual and complete
change. An abstract body which is taken for a clock at one instant is something
else the next. There can be no clock at rest relative to any fictional center
of mass of an observer, nor can any clock exist throughout the theoretical time
it is supposed to referee.
So, what then are the spans of xyz and t? They are relations in consciousness
of images, not of absolute, or relative, space or time, which are absolute to
each consciousness in its fantasy of rest, but are really mere relations of
things consciousness generates as the process of being conscious. The entire
theory of relativity is an illusion, a fantasy of mutually exclusive,
schizophrenic delusions, which proceed non sequitur from the sublime to the
ridiculous.
Observers, as defined in the theory, nowhere exist. Space, time, motion,
simultaneity, measuring rods, and clocks, as defined in the theory, are
complete absurdities.
The theory is shrouded in mystery, not because it is difficult to understand,
or to explain, but because Albert did not understand its psychological and
metaphysical development or meaning, and put forth his wife's numerology as
though it afforded an explanation of physical phenomena, though it did not.
Not only does relativity theory incorporate absolute time and absolute space,
in a codified system of abstract mathematical "transformation", the theory
defines the succession of events at each point as absolute, which they are not,
while defining simultaneity as relative, in the theory, which it is not, in the
theory.
From at least the age Greeks onward, there has been an argument over the
philosophical separation of cause and effect, which is translated as an
absolute succession of before and after at a given point in space. Many have
argued that cause and effect are simultaneous. Since we supposedly dispensed
with simultaneity in relativity theory (the modern view codifies it, and
simultaneity remains mistakenly absolute), cause and effect must be viewed as
relative, and so, therefore, must succession, or before and after. We cannot
assert what happens before and after at a point in space in relativity theory,
or even assign any meaning to the concept of before and after. Let's reduce
relativity theory to an absurdity (it shouldn't take long):
How can before and after be viewed as relative? How can a candle burn up, which
burns down? Does the arrow of time ever boomerang?
Since our "observer" can be naught but a consciousness, the observer exists as
a Life Cycle. We can conceive of a Life of consciousness as a pyramid (or any
other shape, such as a pop bottle, tube, whatever. . .). Conceive of a moment's
consciousness as a square, or slice cross-section of the pyramid parallel to
its base, encompassing the total of an observer's conscious relations at that
moment, on the plane of observation.
Assume Life at the moment of death to be the largest square our sample pyramid
Life of consciousness will achieve, filled with the most memories and
relations. Death is the base of the pyramid.
Further consider the Life of consciousness at the moment of the first conscious
relation to be a point. The birth of thought is the apex or vertex of the
pyramid. Connect the largest square, the base (at the moment of death) with the
point apex (at the moment of the first relation), and you form a pyramid, and
every step of the pyramid is a slice of Life, or moment of the present
consciousness.
Adapting a concept of Abbott's, and the transcendental geometers', consider the
Eyes of our sample consciousness to be a plane surface, say a table top. The
pyramid can pass through the table and consciousness will grasp it slice by
slice. All that the Eyes are capable of witnessing is that part of the pyramid
which intersects the two dimensional plane of the table top, as the pyramid
passes through the table. Pass the pyramid through the plane point first, and
our "observer" will open his or her Eyes, consciousness, as a point, or first
relation, followed by an increasingly larger square of conscious relations
(memories and sense perceptions, though no distinction can be proven between
the two) growing with each passing moment to the base of the pyramid, the
moment of death.
However, since the Eyes of the Life Cycle can only witness the square of
relations of the present, which is built of relations including the observer's
sense of before and after, which is independent of any absolute before and
after, our observer will experience exactly the same sequence of succession,
whether we pass the pyramid through the table point first, or base first, and
no "observer" can ever assert that there is an absolute before or after (or
even a succession at all, for what if the pyramid is a whole over which the
Eyes pass?).
The observer perceives consciousness, and succession is only a feeling, or
quality of the relations which co-exist by observation, not existence, per se.
Consciousness gives the feeling that one thing observed is real and another but
a memory, but all are relations co-extant to the observer and the feeling of
succession is a delusion resulting from conscious relations and not absolute
succession, and conscious relations would exhibit the same sensation-delusion
of before and after should time run forward or backward. In reality, even this
grows beyond fact, as we have no firm definition of what a conscious "moment"
should mean. Psychologists have speculated that a conscious moment is really a
span of duration, and thus relativity theory cannot even be considered, other
than to preclude its possibility.
Consider a psychological experiment. Show an observer a short movie of a pool
of milk on the floor, with the milk raising up from the floor into a tilted
glass in the main character's hand, and filling it as the actor tilts his glass
into an upright position. Then ask the observer to explain what he or she has
witnessed. The observer will tell you that he or she saw a movie played
backwards of an actor pouring a glass of milk onto the floor. However, you may
assert that is not what the observer witnessed. You may believe that the
observer reconstructed what he or she witnessed into relations of before and
after which are the opposite of reality. Show another "observer" a single frame
of the middle of the movie (equivalent to a glimpse of the present in our
consciousness). This second observer will also conclude that the movie is one
of an actor pouring a glass of milk onto the floor, whether the movie be
running backwards, or forwards. Before and after thus appear as relations of
consciousness, which are not absolute even to a sole observer, and which have
no physical meaning. I have left out the difficulties imposed by the
transference of information through time, such as the passage of light from
position to position, for simplicity's sake.
The single frame of the movie is equivalent to a square slice of the pyramid
intersecting the plane of consciousness. The actor's thoughts, were they able
to be captured on film--his or her sense of relation, would remain the same in
a still frame, whether the movie be running forwards or backwards, and the
succession would feel the same to the actor in either event. Whether our lives
proceed in one direction, or the other, through Time (which is our conscious
relations), or whether they proceed at all, can never be determined, for we
would observe the same consciousness in any event; and would construct the same
relations, which are psychological constructions, and not absolutes.
Therefore, the special theory of relativity is a fallacy, which depends on
numerous absolutes, which absolutes can never be proven, and which false theory
depends on inertial reference frames, which are nothing but mathematical
abstractions, nowhere to be perceived beyond the fairy tales written in numbers
on the blackboard (numerology).
Albert wrote to his friend Besso in 1954 and admitted that his theories were
likely without any merit whatsoever. The following year, Albert died.
***
It is my intention in this first book to catalogue the development of the
psychological and metaphysical theory, which we call, "relativity theory" from
the period of John Locke onward in order to prove that it is an anti-physical,
mystical and numerological theory of consciousness, for which neither Albert
Einstein nor Mileva Einstein-Marity holds priority, and which he never had the
intellect to comprehend. Relativity theory is a Greek theory of consciousness.
The second volume to this work will document the theory from the period of the
ancients through to Christiaan Huygens.
The casual reader will find the smoking gun that Albert did not originate
relativity theory, as it is popularly conceived, by simply reading the
quotations herein from Stallo, published and widely read in 1848 and 1882. I
hope that there is something here for every reader, from die hard Albert
hero-worshiper, to mathematician, sci-fi fan to philosopher, and all sensible
people.
Please keep in mind that relativity theory is the theory of relations in
consciousness. An "observer" must represent a consciousness. Time and space are
manifestations of the relations which generate consciousness. They only have
meaning as interpretations of relation. It is not a real-world belief system,
but a psychological one. It is ideally a default belief, which admits of no
objective reality.
The average person is probably unaware that the theory claims that your eyes,
and the letters you read only seem to you to exist at the same time. There is
avowed no real simultaneity. The theory asserts that another observer may not
see them as existing together in the same time as you perceive them. When you
walk your dog, another observer may not see you and your dog as existing in the
same moment. Of course, no proof of same exists outside the tabula rasa of a
blackboard, or can even be rationally conceived of existing. But you aren't
supposed to know that. Just be happy that you are too stupid to understand, or
so some might say. After all, if it makes no sense, and it's pure numerology
preached by a clown, it has to be genius! That is perhaps one reason why the
equation E = mc2 is promoted as representing the theory. The other concepts,
such as the lack of simultaneity, would likely be rejected quite quickly by
sensible people, as being transparently ridiculous.
If you doubt that relativity theory is a modern day form of numerology, even
more steeped in number worship than Pythagoras' mythology, ask someone
knowledgeable in the theory to offer a definition of Space-Time, energy,
inertia, or mass, which doesn't degrade into the numerology of numbers,
equations and/or mathematical identities. The theory of relativity cannot tell
you what any of those terms mean, other than to repeat mathematical identities
in which the terms circularly define each other. It doesn't describe anything
real. There exists no physical demonstration of an "inertial reference frame"
in the real world. No one has ever observed "Space-Time". There is excessive
talk of manifolds and vectors in an effort to mask the utter lack of an
explanation, with numerological gibberish. Don't be fooled by the
gobble-dy-gook. The theory explains nothing. It is an axiomatic, Petitio
Principii argument employed to compose a surreal world of the constant speed of
light, in which springy space replaces cause and effect. It is a grand,
numerological cop out to ignorance, touted in lofty language and perpetuated
with priestly arrogance and self-contradictory, institutionalized dogma.
Why do people catagorize reality, as it appears in conscious images, as
"absolute" and "relative"? There are several reasons (the assumptions which
follow are not mine) among them we find: 1. The religious, Tertullian, Spinoza,
Newton, etc., associate "absolute space" with God. Since God is continuous, God
cannot move. Therefore, all bodies move relative to the unmoving body of God,
"absolute space", and are animated with "spirit" or the breath of the body of
God. Force is the conscious will of God, and is therefore mysterious. Stallo
removed the absolute space and composed it of pure "spirit". Newton was an
absolutist and Stallo was a relativist. The difference is the concept of
observation. The absolutist believes that the unobserved clock records ratios
of absolute time, while never defining same. The relativist ducks the question,
"what does an unobserved clock measure?" The absolutist believes that the
unobserved body extends through ratios of absolute space, while never defining
same. The relativist ducks the question, "what does an unobserved measuring rod
measure?" Both arguments boil down to the same abstraction. Both assert that
bodies and their changes measure abstract ratios of continuous absolute space
and time, in discontinuous, equivalent, encrypted units. Cartesians assume that
bodies are extended and that bodies measure only themselves, with no space
measured or implied. Likewise, Cartesians hold that changes in bodies, called
time by the absolutists and relativists, are changes in bodies, and do not
imply or measure units or ratios of "absolute time".
2. Some absolutists believe that absolute space is filled with substance, that
free space is a plenum, and not a vacuum. They generally distinguish the
substance, usually called "æther", from absolute space itself, as being a
quiescent fluid of particles. It is the absurdity that absolute space exists
without the æther that is supposed to fill it, which opened the door for the
word games of the relativists. There is no need of void between particles in
the plenum, only motion, the omnipresent change, of which the present is
composed.
The relativists play games with words and use the word "space" to substitute
for æther, while affording no explanation as to what "space" is. They claim a
distinction without making one. They had no need to define space, because the
absolutists foolishly associated space with body, then semantically separated
it from body.
The space of the relativist is identical to the space of the absolutist. The
space of the absolutist is actually the body of the æther. There is no logical
distinction. The relativists dropped the word æther, while maintaining the
concept, and called æther, "empty space". The absolutists employed two words
for the same thing. The relativists stole credit for theories of the
absolutists by dropping one synonym and claiming a distinction where there was
none. Cartesians deny "space" per se and identify the "extension" of bodies and
bodies alone. Cartesians also believe the universe to be a plenum, but do not
believe there is any absolute space or time. Bodies together form a continuous
universe and move, change, amongst themselves, being their motion. For a
Cartesian, there is no need of an unmoving substratum to define this motion.
The Cartesians hold space and time to be superfluous conceptions, derived from
the limited extension of bodies.
But what if bodies are not extended in any sense, which our conscious image of
them implies? What if dimension is the fluff of consciousness and not the form
of reality? To what degree is the universe, universal? What if the underlying
principle of Nature is difference, not identity? What if that which did not
change, could not be grasped by our consciousness? What if the permanent is
transparent to us, for we could find in it no difference to excite our
conscious images? These are the dreams that absolutes, relatives, and motions
are made of. . . .
How does such a ridiculous relativity theory as the special theory of
relativity survive? It survives simply because those in authority have had the
power to suppress dissenting and opposing points of view. The "theory" is a
religion, which requires no proof. It is filled with mysteries, which we are
asked to accept ontologically, and which compel us to probe no deeper into
causes than abstract pseudo-appearances, crazy chimeras of mathematical
transformation. The educational process requires indoctrination into the
numerological religion, and society stigmatizes those who would be so bold as
to disagree with the religion.
The priests protect each other. The most ridiculous speculations receive no
rebuttal, if they are put forward by "respected authorities". In this way, the
priests have no fear that their ideas will receive criticism. Should
significant criticism arise, it is effectively suppressed in the peer review
journals. The priests enjoy a pretty position of power, and their speculations
become more ridiculous with each incarnation.
Imagine yourself in their position. If you wrote a paper, and were (perhaps
are) a respected authority, how could you best maintain your respected status?
There is enormous pressure on you to publish. Would it be in your best interest
to suppress any criticism? Would you have the power to do so? How is
competition suppressed in any human endeavor? Is it possible that there is
tacit agreement to agree with whatever the heroes of the field put forth? Is it
human to reject the arguments of dissenters with ad hominem personal attacks in
order to avoid the validity of their criticisms and maintain privileged status
over truth? Are those with opposing views attacked politically? Are careers at
stake over ideas? Is there truly a free exchange of ideas?
Why are the same ideas regurgitated book after book in the post-general
relativity period? I cannot believe that there is a lack of creativity, or a
lack of healthy skepticism. I do believe there is a pervasive fear of ridicule.
Since a critic, or innovator, who would seek to change standard definitions,
and to instill new ideas, is subject to being labeled as one who does not
understand, or worse, and permanently stigmatized, there is tremendous pressure
on those who publish to simply repeat what has already been accepted, and to
not venture into the woods without a substantial volume of "case law" to
support his or her views. Not only must new ideas be reduced to old ones, they
must be reduced to dogmatic definitions and restricted to the views of specific
accepted authorities. We have far too much respect for authority, for every
authority is eventually proven wrong. It is seemingly inevitable.
Science in the Twentieth Century suffered under the yoke of the cult of
personality. Schizophrenic "heroes" uttered nonsense, and their adoring fans
doubted their own sensibilities and accepted the myth that the truth could
elude the intelligent and required a certain form of madness to be understood.
It was quite tragically a century of hero worship. Governments became mass
murderers and science abandoned many of the enormous advances made in the
Nineteenth Century. We were asked to accept the 'newspeak' of
'counter-intuitive' truth, 'space-time', 'anti-matter', 'virtual particles' and
'big bang'.
Compare the physics of Faraday with the numerology of Albert. Just when the
materialists had opened the door to social justice and practical science, the
flakey heroes of the Twentieth Century shut the valve, mass murdered millions
and degraded science into mysticism. Society became increasingly bureaucratic
and authority gained increasing powers. The process is reversible. I hope we
can begin a new century with greater tolerance of differences of opinion, and
abandon the grossly destructive hero worship of the Twentieth Century.
You might wonder what you will find quoted in this book.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
on works related to the principle of relativity written before the Einsteins
submitted their 1905 paper on the subject, and related to that paper. Popular
myth holds that the infamous formula E = mc2 is very significant. It is not
very significant, nor is it original to the Einsteins. Though there are a
couple of allusions to E = mc2 in this work, there is not much on the equation
in what follows. The subject will be covered in another volume. Several volumes
may appear, documenting Albert's career-long pattern of repeating what others
had published before him.
You will find herein proof that neither Minkowski, nor the Einsteins, hold
priority on the concept of four-dimensional space-time. H. G. Wells, in 1895,
expressly stated it in a popular novel, long before Minkowski claimed priority.
And long before Wells was Stallo, who, in 1848, stated,
"Space and Time are both abstractions, i.e. they are only, inasmuch as the
understanding forcibly keeps them asunder, though their truth is their being in
one, their inseparability in spite of their distinctness."
Boscovich stated,
"Hence, the number of other points of space is an infinity of the third order;
& thus the probability is infinitely greater with an infinity of the third
order, when we are concerned with any other particular instant of time."
Joseph Larmor, in 1900, raised space-time's significance to relativity theory
and expressly called it a "continuum", long before Minkowski. Poincaré
established the four-dimensional analysis of the 'Lorentz Transformation',
before Minkowski, or Albert. Menyhért (Melchior) Palágyi, in 1901, published
Neue Theorie des Raumes und der Zeit [reprinted in Zur Weltmechanik, Beiträge
zur Metaphysik der Physik von Melchior Palágyi, mit einem Geleitwort von Ernst
Gehrcke; (herein reprinted, as well)]. Before Palágyi was Henri Bergson, who
wrote in 1888,
"in a word, we create for them a fourth dimension of space, which we call
homogenous time, and which enables the movement of the pendulum, although
taking place at one spot, to be continually set in juxtaposition to itself."25
Prior to Bergson, Ernst Mach wrote in 1866,
"Now, I think that we can go still farther in the scale of presentations of
space and thus attain to presentations whose totality I will call physical
space.
It cannot be my intention here to criticize our conceptions of matter, whose
insufficiency is, indeed, generally felt. I will merely make my thoughts clear.
Let us imagine, then, a something behind (unter) matter in which different
states can occur; say, for simplicity, a pressure in it, which can become
greater or smaller.
Physics has long been busied in expressing the mutual action, the mutual
attraction (opposite accelerations, opposite pressures) of two material
particles as a function of their distance from each other--therefore of a
spatial relation. Forces are functions of the distance. But now, the spatial
relations of material particles can, indeed, only be recognized by the forces
which they exert one on another.
Physics, then, does not strive, in the first place, after the discovery of the
fundamental relations of the various pieces of matter, but after the derivation
of relations from other, already given, ones. Now, it seems to me that the
fundamental law of force in nature need not contain the spatial relations of
the pieces of matter, but must only state a dependence between the states of
the pieces of matter.
If the positions in space of the material parts of the whole universe and their
forces as functions of these positions were once known, mechanics could give
their motions completely, that is to say, it could make all the positions
discoverable at any time, or put down all positions as functions of time.
But, what does time mean when we consider the universe? This or that "is a
function of time" means that it depends on the position of the vibrating
pendulum, on the position of the rotating earth, and so on. Thus, 'All
positions are functions of time' means, for the universe, that all positions
depend upon one another.
But since the positions in space of the material parts can be recognized only
by their states, we can also say that all the states of the material parts
depend upon one another.
The physical space which I have in mind--and which, at the same time, contains
time in itself--is thus nothing other than dependence of phenomena on one
another. A complete physics, which would know this fundamental dependence,
would have no more need of special considerations of space and time, for these
latter considerations would already be included in the former knowledge."26
Edgar Allen Poe believed,
"A rational cause for the phćnomenon, I maintain that Astronomy has palpably
failed to assign: -- but the considerations through which, in this Essay, we
have proceeded step by step, enable us clearly and immediately to perceive that
Space and Duration are one."27
Poe was under the spell Alexander von Humboldt (and opium). Humboldt stated
"Mach's Principle" long before Mach, but long before Humboldt, Boscovich stated
it. I shall return to Humboldt when I address the general theory of relativity.
Humboldt's influence on Stallo, Poe and the general intellectual community
toward relativism cannot be emphasized strongly enough!
D'Alembert let us in on a secret back in 1754,
"As I've already said, it is not possible to conceive of more than three
dimensions. However, a brilliant wit with whom I am acquainted considers
duration a fourth dimension, and that the product of time multiplied by
solidity would, in some sense, be a product of four dimensions. This idea is
perhaps contestable, but it appears to me to be of some merit, even if it is
only that of novelty."
Lagrange worked out a new mechanics with time as the fourth dimension,
introducing the square root of negative one and thereby adding a degree of
freedom analogous to a geometry of four dimensions.
The relational image of time to space and motion is an ancient conception. When
Minkowski, in 1908, uttered the infamous words,
"Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into
mere shadows, and only a union of the two will preserve an independent
reality,"
his words were not only unoriginal, they were trite.
Space-time curvature will be addressed in another volume.
What you don't find here, you will find in the supplements to this volume,
which first volume is primarily devoted to the special theory of relativity.
Albert Einstein was not a founder of the numerology we call the special theory
of relativity, which is truly a theory of encrypted absolutivity. He was a
cheerleader for it, who claimed credit for every touchdown. I won't just aver
this, if you read on, I'll prove it to you. . . which is to say, the haunted
ghosts will speak for themselves!
Every article herein appeared in print, in public, before the Einsteins
submitted their manuscript. If you are short of time and patience, I suggest
you skip ahead and read the later works. I included much material which the
casual reader may find redundant and superfluous. My goal is to document the
evolution of the ideas and the pervasiveness of the concepts and phrases
throughout recorded human history. Albert was not the only one to repeat what
others had written, without giving credit. The ancient example of the relative
motion of a ship was repeated ad nauseam, as Stallo pointed out. The ship later
became a train, after its invention, and the explanation of relative rest in a
train, repeated again and again, may cause motion sickness in my poor readers.
My personal favorites are Leibniz, Boscovich, Berkeley, Herbart, Lange, Stallo
and Mach. Mach rejected Albert's relativity theory and asked not to be
associated with the dogmatic nonsense, in spite of the fact that Joseph
Petzoldt sought to give him his due.28 I ask for Mach's posthumous forgiveness,
and raise in my defense the fact that Albert cited Mach as a source of ideas.29
However, Mach's ideas were not very different from those of the earlier
Boscovich. Each of those whom I have singled out had a keen mind and a healthy
repulsion for any dogmatic worship of authority over sense.
The math of the so-called "Lorentz Transformation" followed the lineage of
Boscovich, Voigt, FitzGerald, Larmor, Poincaré, Langevin and Lorentz. Everett
stated expressly at least as early as 1883, in anticipation of Lange,
"We cannot even assert that there is any such thing as absolute rest, or that
there is any difference between absolute rest and uniform straight movement of
translation."30
and
"[T]here is no test by which we can distinguish between absolute rest and
uniform velocity of translation".31
In the 1700's, Boscovich called this the "Principle of Invariance", and further
asserted that bodies in translatory motion contract as to length and dilate as
to time.
Herbert Spencer wrote a fantastic treatise on relativity theory in his, "First
Principles of a New System of Philosophy", which is too lengthy to reprint here
in its entirety, and which suffers greatly from abridgement. I highly recommend
this work, as it covers such a broad spectrum, from the religious to the
profane, and beyond. Many university libraries have copies of it. Each edition
offers its own rewards, and drawbacks. I suggest cross-referencing various
incarnations of the work to any serious student. The same holds true for Karl
Pearson's The Grammar of Science, 2nd. Ed., Adam and Charles Black, London,
(1900), from which the Einsteins took much. When one reads Pearson and Spencer,
who truly understood relativistic concepts, the Einsteins' work is seen for the
watered down tripe that it is.
Do not deny these thinkers their right to recognition and the priority of their
thoughts!
NOTES:
1. W. Kantor, Relativistic Propagation of Light, Coronado Press, Lawrence,
Kansas, (1976).
2. L. Lange, Das Inertialsystem vor dem Forum der Naturforschung: Kritisches
und Antikritisches, Philosophische Studien, 20, (1902), p. 18.
3. J. B. Stallo, Die Begriffe und Theorieen der modernen Physik, Johann
Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig, (1901), pp. 205, 331.
4. J. Violle, Lehrbuch der Physik, Julius Springer, Berlin, (1892), p. 90;
cited in J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2,
Princeton University Press, (1989), p. 255, Note 13.
5. H. Poincaré, Wissenschaft und Hypothese, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, (1904), pp.
113-114, 119, especially 243, 340.
6. F. Hausdorff, translator, annotator, Über die Bewegung der Körper durch den
Stoss / Über die Centrifugalkraft, Ostwald's Klassiker der exakten
Wissenschaften, Nr. 138, Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, (1903), pp. 64, 73.
7. A. A. Michelson, The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous
ether, American Journal of Science, 22, (1881), pp. 120-129.
8. A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, On the Relative Motion of the Earth and
the Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science, 34, (1887), pp. 333-345.
9. L. Lange, Über die wissenschaftliche Fassung der Galilei'schen
Beharrungsgesetzes, Philosophische Studien, 2, (1885), pp. 266-297, 539-545.
L. Lange, Ueber das Beharrungsgesetz, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der
Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig,
mathematisch-physische Classe, 37, (1885), pp. 333-351.
L. Lange, Die geschichtliche Entwickelung des Bewegungsbegriffs und ihr
voraussichtliches Endergebniss. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Kritik der
mechanischen Principien von Ludwig Lange. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann,
Leipzig, (1886).
L. Lange, Das Inertialsystem vor dem Forum der Naturforschung, Leipzig, (1902).
L. Lange, Das Inertialsystem vor dem Forum der Naturforschung: Kritisches und
Antikritisches, Philosophische Studien, 20, (1902) pp. 1-71.
E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics, Open Court, (1960), pp. 291-297.
E. Gehrcke, Kritik der Relativitätstheorie, Hermann Meusser, Berlin, (1924),
pp. 17, 30-34.
E. Gehrcke, Über den Sinn der Absoluten Bewegung von Körpern, Sitzberichten der
Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XII, Jahrgang, (1912), pp.
209-222,.
E. Gehrcke, Über die Koordinatensystem der Mechanik, Verhandlung der Deutschen
Physikalischen Gesellschaft, XV, Jahrgang, (1913), pp. 260-266.
H. Seeliger, Vierteljahrsschrift der astronomischen Gesellschaft, XXII, p. 252.
10. I. Newton, Principia, Book III, General Scholium; see also: I. Newton,
Opticks, Query 31. Note that Newton sought to cover up his initial statements
after the publication of his book began, and manually, literally cut away his
pantheism from those books already printed, which is to say those books which
he could get his hands on. However, Leibnitz received an intact copy, and
issued a polemic against Newton's occult beliefs. Can you imagine the terror
and paranoia Newton felt, when it was exposed that he had gone against Church
dogma? What else could have driven him to his undignified efforts to hide his
beliefs?
11. K. Pearson, The Grammar of Science, 2nd. Ed., Adam and Charles Black,
London, (1900), pp. 533-535.
12. See, Tertullian, De Anima; Confer: St. Augustine, De haeresibus ad
Quodvultdeus, 86.
13. K. S. Latourette, A History of Christianity, Harper & Brothers, New York,
(1953), pp.125-128.
14. See, The Oxford English Dictionary, "spirit".
15. See, Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest, a Biography of Isaac Newton,
Chapter 8, "Rebellion".
16. C. Neumann, Ueber die Principien der Galilei-Newton'schen Theorie, B. G.
Teubner, Leipzig, (1870).
Whittaker cites: "Festschrift Boltzmann, Leipzig, (1904), p. 252 ";
and Mach cites: "Ber. der königl. sächs. Ges. der Wiss., 1910, III".
17. H. Streintz, Die physikalischen Grundlagen der Mechanik, Leipzig, (1883).
18. René Descartes Principles of Philosophy, trans. by V. R. Miller and R. P.
Miller, Boston, (1983), p. 53.
19. H. Bergson, Duration and Simultaneity, Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.,
Indianapolis, New York, Kansas City, (1965), pp. 33-34; quoting H. More,
Scripta Philosophica, (1679), II, 248, where More was responding to Des Cartes'
law of reciprocity, Principles, II, 29 & 30.
20. V. Bjerknes, Fields of Force, Columbia University Press, Macmillan, London,
(1906), pp. 8-10.
21. A. Reiser, Albert Einstein, a Biographical Portrait, Albert & Charles Boni,
New York, (1930), p. 104.
22. E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, (1960),
p. 341.
23. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen
Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), p. 416.
24. E. Cunninghum, The Principle of Relativity, CUP, (1914), p. 191.
25. H. Bergson, Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of
Consciousness, G. Allen, New York, Macmillan, (1921).
26. "Ueber die Entwicklung der Raumvorstellungen", Zeitschrift für Philosophie
und philosophische Kritik, (1866), translated by Phillip E. B. Jourdain in
Mach's History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy, Open
Court, Chicago, (1911), pp. 88-90.
27. E. A. Poe, Eureka, (1848).
28. E. Mach, Die Principien der physikalischen Optik, (1921), pp. viii-ix; The
Principles of Physical Optics, (1926), pp. vii-vii.
E. Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung, 8th ed. F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig,
(1921), Appendix: "Das Verhältnis der Mach'schen Gedankenwelt zur
Relativitätstheorie" by Joseph Petzoldt, pp. 490-517.
E. Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung, 9th ed. F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig,
(1933), Forward by Dr. Ludwig Mach, pp. XVIII-XX.
See also: John Blackmore, Klaus Hentschel, Ernst Mach als Aussenseiter, (1985),
Willhelm Braumüller, 134-138.
29. "Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist", Library of Living Philosophers,
P. A. Schilpp, Evanston, Illinois, (1949), p. 18-21.
30. J. D. Everett, Elementary Treatise on Natural Philosophy by A. Privat
Deschanel, 6th Ed., D. Appelton and Company, New York, (1883), p. 43.
31. J. D. Everett, On Absolute and Relative Motion, Report of the Sixty-Fifth
Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Vol. 65,
(1895), p. 620.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Poincaré's (and the Einsteins' parroted) principle of relativity is a fallacy,
for the detection of the addition of velocities with respect to light and its
medium, or of that of its source, is no more a detection of absolute space,
than would be the detection of c +/- v with respect to sound in the air, or a
rifle shot fired from a moving airplane. Light's speed would not equate to an
absolute velocity, sans an absolutely resting æther, unless one first asserts
that light is a wave propagation in the medium of absolute space of constant
velocity in all directions, and that light's velocity is independent of the
velocity of the source.
However, if one claims that light is a wave propagation in the medium of
absolute space, which wave propagates at a constant velocity which is
independent of the velocity of the source, then one has merely deceptively
renamed the "resting æther" as "absolute space", and one has not rendered the
"æther" superfluous, but rather, indispensable, though styled under another
title, the misnomer of "empty space".
Of course, Poincaré is reasonable in asserting that our perception of motion as
a change in position through time is relational and not absolute. However, I
cannot understand why Poincaré associated Michelson's and Lorentz' myths of an
absolutely resting æther with Poincaré's own argument that there is no absolute
space, even though it was a convenient way to dispel their myths. It was a non
sequitur (strangely and tellingly aped by the Einsteins). Perhaps Poincaré was
simply fascinated with the mathematical argument and didn't want to let go of
it. He was, perhaps, Tom Sawyer'ed into the whole straw man issue of the light
medium equating to absolute space.
Since there is no reason whatsoever to equate light propagation with absolute
space, one may wonder, is there any reason whatsoever to claim that an absence
of the addition of velocities with respect to light renders "space" relative?
This is the proper question to ask, and the answer is, given the Lorentz
Transformation algebras, NO! Space is not relative in the mythology of the
special theory of relativity. It is the means of measurement, moving bodies,
and the arbitrary and false conceptualization of simultaneity, which are
relative in the mythology of the special theory of relativity, not continuous
space, which space is the presumed medium of light propagation, by definition.
The special theory of relativity's entirely artificial and self-contradicting
definition of events and simultaneity plays a spurious role in covering up the
dynamic effects the Einsteins wished to disguise.
There is, perhaps, a good reason why the pseudo-relativists don't ask if an
absence of the addition of velocities with respect to light renders space
relative, but instead cling to the irrational straw man issue: That the
detection of the frame of light propagation equates to the detection of
absolute space, and is therefore excluded in principle--even though the
pseudo-relativists dispute the existence of a resting æther! The reason for the
pseudo-relativists' bizarre assertions may be that the correct question
inspires the truly scientific mind to search for more sensible explanations
than the special theory of relativity, such as to question the validity and
interpretation of the experiments, which are used to promote the mythology, or
to look to a mobile æther, or even to Newton's corpuscular theory of light.
Poincaré, Lange and Everett clearly hold priority on the concept of the
"inertial system", Lange strictly, having defined it in 1885, and Poincaré by
introducing (corrupting) it into the special theory of relativity in 1895.
Lange's "inertial system" does not incorporate absolute space, but rather views
space as a uniform translation in itself, with "rest" and "rectilinear uniform
motion of translation" being two terms for the same, ideal, abstract
"phenomenon". Minkowski took credit unto himself for this conceptualization,
but by no means deserved it. The battle to instill a belief in the "inertial
system" over the Newtonian belief in absolute space was hard fought and bitter.
It was unfair of Minkowski to lay claim to the ideas of those who had fought so
hard against institutionalized views, but it was typical of the cyclical
political process of institutional science--typical of the pseudo-scientific
bureaucracy. Innovators are ridiculed until they surrender to obscurity, then
their ideas are copied by established figures, who then take credit for that
against which the institutions had once dogmatically fought. The process seems
inevitable, and quite human. It is found on every playground and the
pseudo-scientific bureaucracy is little different from a kindergarten, in this
respect.
The great difficulty with the "inertial system" concept is that it is a
circular definition, which cannot depend upon the metaphysical substratum of
absolute space, for it denies the existence of absolute space. One must
empirically test for an inertial system, and it is therefore without generic
meaning. One must, as an example, look to Foucault's pendulum in order to infer
abstract "rest" from real "motion". Inertial systems simply do not exist in
Nature. They are a fallacy, and the special principle of relativity is nothing
but a false corollary to the fallacy of the "inertial system". In a true
"inertial system", a ball released without force from the hand would not move,
and a ball thrown would remain in steady, rectilinear motion forever.
Since this so-called "inertia" is fallaciously taken to be a property of inert
matter and inert, empty space, these fundamental precepts obviate any theory of
purely relative motion, as directions and coordinate systems remain absolute
and abstract--wholly ontological. Though there is no privileged frame, there is
yet the absolute direction and absolute time of an inertially moving body, i.e.
rectilinear and regular motion, and the absolute law of Nature, which
supposedly governs the circular definition of inertia. One has to conceive of
what "straight motion" should mean, and can draw any map to justify its
abstraction. In so doing, the conceptual manifestation of an inertial system is
circular as to its definition. Furthermore, it places "inertia" in the realm of
a physical force inherent in "space", which is absurd, for empty space is
expressly defined as having no physical properties.
The myth of inertia changed from inertia's being a force of inert matter in
Newton, to inertia being a force of inert space in the special theory of
relativity. For Newton, this "force of inertia" was absolute, it was God's
will, or better, God's permission that bodies in motion remain so, unimpeded,
and God's desire that bodies at rest, dead matter, somehow have the "life" to
resist force, which is in fact force against force. Newton's theorization of
the "force of inertia", vis inertiæ, is patently absurd.18 "Force" is contrary
to "inertness". How can it be, in Newton's Third Definition, that dead matter,
be alive, with a will, vis insita? Newton was at times an irrational,
anthropomorphic pantheist, who substituted his numerological belief in God's
will, for science.
Bodies in the universe exist as relations to the universe at large, and not as
Platonic ideals abstracted in "empty space". The construction of a body is not
independent of the forces to which it is subjected. Just as a balloon takes on
a different form when filled with air, and when subjected to various
temperatures and "external forces", so does every existing thing become its
relation to the universal medium, in which it is, and of which it is.
In Newton's myths, matter was defined as "inert" or dead. Space was defined as
"empty", without influence. "Inertia" was defined as a "force" of dead matter.
It was irrational of Newton to define dead matter as constituting a force, that
of "inertia", it was a bald contradiction in terms, "inert" and "force".
Newton further bungled when he asserted that a body at rest continues to rest,
and a body in motion continues to move in a rectilinear, uniform, translatory
motion, unless acted upon by a "force". No body is at rest, but only appears so
to observers subjected to similar forces, who remain at relative rest to each
other, in one artificial monad of perception. The status of "rest" is the gross
abstraction of a given sum of like forces, a resultant force, not the absence
of forces. To bring a body to "rest" from "motion" is to change every part of
its essence. A "body" is an incomprehensibly complex set of waves, which, in
inertial "motion" or "rest" are so polarized as to propagate with a general
affinity for a given direction--circularly defined, of necessity.
Bringing a "moving body" to "rest" is not the action of "forces" acting on dead
matter, but is the complete change in the polarity of motion of the waves which
constitute the body. Just as sound waves are reflected off of a wall, the act
of bringing a moving body to rest is the process of establishing a common
polarity to the waves which comprise the body, such that they propagate in a
like direction, at a similar rate, with that to which "rest" arbitrarily
refers.
Likewise, a body in uniform motion moves because it is subject to unlike
"forces" from the observer who considers it to move. A moving body is a
collection of waves with a polarity of motion, a direction and velocity of
propagation, which differs from that which is arbitrarily taken to be "at
rest". A body which is subjected to no "force" will "rest", and therefore, a
body in motion, uniform or otherwise, must be under the influence of
"force"--deviations from the sums of forces which manifest "rest". Which is to
say, a body whose wave structure maintained the polarity of motion of a body at
rest, would remain at rest. Therefore, a body in motion is unlike a body at
rest and is a wave propagating in an unlike manner, not the "same body" put
into inertial motion by force. Newton irrationally defined these sums of
"forces", the polarity of waves which compose a given body, what we pretend to
be "inertia", as an intrinsic property of dead matter.
Consider that a wave on the surface of lake, which follows the motion of a
boat, appears to "rest" relative to the boat, but this wave is continually
composed of different portions of water, and therefore cannot "rest" in any
absolute sense, as it does not pass through time, other than as "change" given
a deceivingly consistent name and mental image, "this wave". Another boat in
uniform motion of translation relative to the same wave appears to be in
"inertial motion". Now, consider that the initial boat is itself composed of
waves, and in the realm of awareness of that which constitutes water wave and
boat wave, a like polarity of motion constitutes "rest", not because no forces
are involved, but because the motions, which are perpetual, are perceived to be
of a like nature--"relatively resting". Ultimately, the material of the
"medium" and of the "body" are waves, and no like portion moves. Rather,
"everything" in the universe changes--the universe changes.
The question as to what is the velocity of the waves relative to their medium
is seemingly meaningless as an absolute, as the medium is irresolvably composed
of waves itself, such that form or body is a state of awareness in the
consciousness of the perceiver given the realm of sense information he or she
perceives, and is not an absolute motion through a quasi-rigid and stationary
medium, unless that medium be awareness itself, the awareness of that which is
changing.
A flag may ripple in the wind, but we merely perceive the body of the flag as
the "medium", and the ripples which flow through it as "waves", but, upon
deeper reflection, we come to see that the body of the flag is, nevertheless,
itself ripples in some unseen medium, which medium itself is a priori likewise
but ripples, ad infinitum, and our need to give solidity to that which exists
by being ephemeral is the very foundation upon which our sanity rests, but we
are wise enough to go beyond sense experience and language to understand a
greater insight. It is our sense of Self which endures, not material or medium.
Since we view our Self as existing throughout the changes It interprets, our
lives in motion, we anthropomorphically impose this view on dimension,
conceiving that dimension remains immutable and constitutes the ultimate medium
of change, but once we realize that we are making a logical choice based upon
the conventions of our language, and not the logical choice experience compels
us to make, we can progress to greater insights.
Dimension is a human quality related to stimulus. Two stimuli, two points
imagined, create or are categorized in the mind as one dimension, a line, and
with three, we can form the image of a plane, visually. However, an unlike
stimulus is required to conceive of a third dimension, and that stimulus comes
from touch, from the sense of resistence. As our minds construct the third
dimension of depth from touch, it is natural for us to equate free motion and
inert rest with this "space" our mind constructs as our awareness. We move a
body through the force of our will, which motion causes us to feel resistence
in the third dimension we never see, but conceptualize from our sense of
resistence, and the changing appearance of what we, under a delusion, conceive
to be the same thing, which we see moving in two dimensions. Our heads are the
frame of reference for our eyes and our inner ears. The images extant in our
consciousnesses resulting from our sensual experiences, and the innate
awareness the structure of minds creates, are both accelerometers and
geometers, such that three dimensions seem permanent to us as the very nature
of our awareness. But waves, bodies, are not geometers and do not record
acceleration, but are its form made physically manifest. We, therefore,
mistakenly associate change and position with the force of our will, and delude
ourselves through the artificial consistency of language into believing that
since we have named this "will", it is one immutable thing, in spite of the
fact that it changes. We also, anthropomorphically, impose the feelings of
permanence our language and our self-awareness inspires, and the
tri-dimensional nature of our awareness on Nature, herself--even though we are
conspicuously aware that everything, including our sense of Self, is ephemeral.
We position our changing sense of Self in time and space, and demand that this
position remain, for it exists in our memories--is a categorical position in
our minds which our minds can access to reflect upon and create awareness, and
in so doing, we pretend that the universe contains this substratum, which our
psyches contain--that position is remembered as fixed places in which things
exists, and not just of which things exist. But this feeling of an immutable
substratum of position is just that, a feeling, like hunger. It is where our
memories find a place in the present, completely different universe, but it is
nowhere to be found in the Logos, itself. We have never observed Nature to
return to her memories. She forgets us from moment to moment, and we are never
twice under the same skin, never once the same as we once were.
The special theory of relativity becomes even more absurd than Newton's myths,
for it compels the "reciprocity" and "absolute identity" of bodies in inertial,
relative motion. The 1905 paper states,
"Let a rigid measuring rod and a number of clocks be given to each system, and
allow that the two measuring rods, as well as all the clocks of the two
systems, are in all respects alike."
Two things which are in all respects alike are the same one thing, the same
relation of waves to the universal medium. The construction of rods and clocks
is not independent of the rest of the universe. The concept of reciprocity
compels that the "same rod" is placed into uniform motion with respect to the
"same rod" at rest. This notion is justified by the abstract, kinematic
delusion of the inertial system concept, and by the artificial identity of
language, which is, however, contradicted by experience, which experience
should cause the language to progress to incorporate our greater insights--a
process hindered by the pseudo-scientific bureaucracy's infatuation with Albert
Einstein. In fact, the rod in motion is subject to different forces from the
rod at rest, or it, too, would be at "rest". Since the moving rod is subjected
to different forces from the resting rod, it is in no sense the same rod. Its
dimensions, composition, and all of its measurable properties, differ. There is
no "same rod" put into motion.
Since a clock is, by definition, a uniform motion, it cannot be at rest, and
its motion cannot be the same uniform motion if it is accelerated. There is no
"resting clock" and there is no "same clock" put into motion. The Einsteins'
blunders are obvious and are fatal to their theory. The Einsteins' fundamental
precepts are inane, childish fallacies.
All of the experiments to date taken to support the special theory of
relativity are unilateral and not reciprocal, and do not in any sense support
the theory. There has been no experiment which demonstrates reciprocal relative
simultaneity, any more than the Chinese and Gregorian calenders evince
reciprocal relative simultaneity. The experiments to date exhibit dynamic
effects, and not kinematic, reciprocal effects. The "same rod" cannot be put in
motion. "Resting clocks" do not exist and the "same clock" cannot be put into
motion.
Kinematic, reciprocal effects do not, and cannot exist, for bodies--clocks and
measuring rods--do not exist as dead matter in void space, but as waves in the
universal medium. Things do not move or rest "inertly", but only as they exist
as an ephemeral impulse. A theoretical body in "uniform, rectilinear motion of
translation" is a wave with a polarity of motion, which propagates so, in a
process which is not passive in any sense, but which is directly dynamic as the
very existence of the wave, which is to say, the existence of change and
difference, the twin factors of polarity of motion.
Since, according to the 1905 paper, light propagates in its normal medium,
system K, the resting system, at a constant velocity, in all directions, it
propagates along the x axis as:
x = c t ,
but "c" truly only has meaning as celeritas in this privileged system, where it
is the natural wave speed in a homogenous and isotropic medium, in vacuo (the
second postulate). The 1905 paper claims that the concept of the æther is
superfluous to the theory that the paper avers. That this second postulate is
valid, without the æther to propagate the wave, is irrational, for the velocity
of light in its medium is independent of the source--there is no addition of
velocities as would occur in Newton's corpuscular theory of light, and hence
the æther is superfluous to the phrasing of the mathematics, as is everything
real, but not the entire conceptualization of the physical principle, which
broader conceptualization is required in order for the mathematics to have any
physical meaning whatsoever. One cannot speak of "propagation" without tacitly
referring to a medium, and the 1905 paper speaks of "propagation". As Arthur
Schuster stated,
"Einstein, in a paper of great interest and power, has developed this idea,
calling his imagined law "The principle of relativity," because it
stipulates--a priori--that only the relative motion between material bodies can
be detected. It is impossible for me to discuss in detail the reasoning by
which this principle is justified, and an account without explanations of its
consequences would lay me open to the charge that I was playing with your
credulity. Suffice, therefore, it to say that strict adherers to the principle
cannot admit the existence of an æther, and yet may speak of the transmission
of light through space with a definite velocity. They must further accept, as a
consequence of their dogma, that identical clocks placed on two bodies moving
with different velocities have different rates of going and that, even on the
same body, identical clocks indicate different times, when the line joining
their positions lies in the direction of motion. The motion must be determined
relative to another body, which is supposed to be at rest, and a clock placed
on that body must serve as the ultimate standard of time. The theory appears to
have an extraordinary power of fascinating mathematicians, and it will
certainly take its place in any critical examination of our scientific beliefs;
but we must not let the simplicity of the assumption underlying the principle
hide the very slender experimental basis on which it rests at present, and more
especially not lose sight of the fact, that it goes much beyond what is proved
by Michelson's experiment. In that experiment, the source of light and the
mirrors which reflected the light were all connected together by rigid bodies,
and their distances depended therefore on the intensity of molecular forces.
Einstein's generalisation assumes that the result of the experiment would still
be the same, if performed in a free space with the source of light and mirrors
disconnected from each other but endowed with a common velocity. This is a
considerable and, perhaps, not quite justifiable generalisation. I am well
aware that Bucherer's experiments with kathode rays are taken to confirm the
validity of Einstein's principle, but if we say that they are not inconsistent
with it, we should probably go as far as is justifiable."19
The first postulate supposedly tells us that the same laws of optics also apply
to a system in uniform motion, such that light also propagates along the x'
axis at celeritas, in parallel uniform translation of motion relative to
resting system K, in the moving system k, as measured by apparatus at rest
relative to k, (not as related to space or time) in other words, by rigidly
fixed material points on x', such that,
x' = c t' .
Using the standard simplification of two dimensions, and two coordinate
systems, x and t, as well as, x' and t' , we are supposedly able to assume the
irrational, anti-geometric absurdity, that,
x - c t = x' - c t'.
Since the Einsteins require that the motion of a material point in K be a
function of time, the following Galilean transformation20 attains,
x' = x - v t. Since the Einsteins require that time equate to "synchronized
clocks", which are synched on the presumption that,
c' = c,
and not
c' = c +/- v,
we supposedly obtain relative simultaneity, or,
x' = x - v t,t' = t - ( v x ) / c 2,
which transformation, though not anything sensible, was common knowledge from
Lorentz' famous book of 1895, Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und
optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern, E. J. Brill, Leiden, which Albert
admitted to having read prior to the publication and development of the 1905
paper, and which first order transformation Lorentz had accomplished by 1892.
This is the a posteriori, synthetic, first-order transformation, which proceeds
from the assumption that c' = c.
If Mileva and Albert were truly working independently of Larmor, Lorentz and
Poincaré, and if they sincerely proceeded from the two postulates, without any
ad hoc hypotheses, then these are the precise equations they should have
attained, and the kinematics section of their paper would have been just that
simple. There would have been no surprise scale factor of factored into the
first order transformation.
The surprise scale factor was known to the Einsteins before they developed
their 1905 paper, and they employed the ad hoc hypotheses of length contraction
and time dilatation, just as Lorentz had before them, despite the two postulate
myth. Since measurements in the 1905 paper are the identity between frames of
the variables of the material form of moving bodies and pseudo-uniform
motions--pretend pseudo-clocks, and not space or time, per se, but distance and
duration defined by apparatus, just as in Lorentz; and, further, since a
privileged frame is assumed, the "resting system", just as in Hertz, Larmor and
Lorentz, the scale factor is length contraction and time dilatation, just as in
Lorentz' theory, and the clock synchronization procedure is a smoke screen, a
"thought experiment", which cannot be performed, and which mandates an
irrational, self-contradictory, and entirely arbitrary definition of
"simultaneity", which confuses statics with dynamics.21
Had Albert been working independently, he had the perfect opportunity to make a
claim of independence from Poincaré and Lorentz in 1907 and again in 1912, when
he wrote extensively on the development of the special theory of relativity,
but he made no such claim of independence. On the contrary, instead of
asserting independence, Albert professed that his work was the mere combination
of H. A. Lorentz' theory of 1904 with the mutually exclusive "classical"
principle of relativity, modified to include the æthereal definition that light
propagates in its medium at celeritas, such that Newton's Fifth Corollary to
the laws of motion, the principle of relativity, embraces celeritas--a
ludicrous and anti-relativistic proposition, raised as a straw man and carried
over from a discredited æthereal theory.
In 1907, Albert makes two distinctions between his work and Lorentz' theory.
Albert calls Lorentz' "Ortzeit", or "time of position" simply "Zeit" or "time".
But this artificial distinction is pure semantics and metaphysics, with no
scientific distinction to be had between the two terms. Time in both theories
is "position time", as forced pseudo-uniform motion, and nothing more. In both
theories, time is an artifice not measured, but abstracted from an irrational
assumption, the invariant speed of a two-way constantly uniform motion between
relatively moving frames. Secondly, Albert discounts the æther, and "only" the
æther, but not absolute space itself. Here again, this is a matter of
metaphysics and semantics, really just pure semantics, as Lorentz pointed out
in 1914,
"The latter is, by the way, up to a certain degree a quarrel over words: it
makes no great difference, whether one speaks of the vacuum or of the æther."
"Letzteres ist übrigens bis zu einem gewissen Grade ein Streit über Worte: es
macht keinen großen Untershied, ob man vom Vakuum oder vom Äther spricht."22
Lorentz, who knew Albert's theory well, would not have alleged that it made no
difference to speak of vacuum as opposed to æther, if Albert had discounted
absolute space. Both Sommerfeld and Pauli also recognized that the "resting
system" was simply another appellation for Lorentz' æther, with absolute
celeritas being an æther concept. Pauli stated, regarding celeritas in absolute
space,
"There is no question of a universal constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, if only because it has the constant value c only in Galilean systems of
reference. On the other hand its independence of the state of motion of the
light source obtains equally in the general theory of relativity. It proves to
be the true essence of the old aether point of view."23
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
"All this was maintained long before the time of Einstein, and one does
injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him."--Charles Nordmann
There is today a pervasive myth, set forth originally by Mileva Einstein-Marity
and Albert Einstein in their 1905 paper on the principle of relativity, which
myth asserts that the Einsteins' rendition of the Poincaré-Lorentz Theory of
Relativity1 required only two postulates for its formulation. Many assert that
the Einsteins employed only these two hypotheses in their theorization, as
opposed to Larmor, Lorentz, Langevin and Poincaré, who required the additional
hypotheses of length contraction and time dilatation to arrive at the same
formulation--long before the Einsteins.
The two postulate myth is substantially and demonstrably false. The false
belief that Mileva and Albert's entire theory is built upon but two postulates
is used as spurious grounds for denying that Poincaré and Lorentz (and many
others) hold priority for the special theory of relativity over the Einsteins.
The so-called "two postulates" in question are stated in the 1905 paper,2 as
follows:
"1 (a). Examples of a similar kind, as well as the failed attempts to find a
motion of the earth relative to the "light medium", lead to the supposition,
that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties
of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, on the
contrary, for all systems of coordinates, for which the equations of mechanics
are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are also valid, as has
already been proven for the magnitudes of the first order. (Drude) p. 473
1 (b). The laws according to which the states of physical systems change do not
depend upon to which of two systems of coordinates, in uniform translatory
motion relative to each other, this change of state is referred.
2 (a). [L]ight in empty space always propagates with a determinate velocity c
irrespective of the state of motion of the emitting body.
2 (b). Every ray of light moves in the "resting" system of coordinates with the
determinate velocity c, irrespective of whether this ray of light is emitted
from a resting or moving body. Such that
velocity = (path of light) / (interval of time) ,
where "interval of time" is to be construed in the sense of the definition of §
1."
Even if the two postulate myth were true, it would not be grounds for denying
the priority of Poincaré and Lorentz, as both postulates were earlier
enunciated by them (the two postulates were, in fact, common knowledge for
hundreds, if not thousands, of years), the theory set forth in the Einsteins'
1905 paper is far more primitive than Poincaré's theory set forth during and
prior to that same year, and brevity does not equate to priority, in fact,
brevity is most often evidence of a lack of priority.
In addition, the 1905 paper is poorly written, incorporating many obvious
fallacies, contradictions and mutual exclusions, and does not follow from its
false premises to its irrational conclusions. The many non sequiturs and
fallacies of Petitio Principii3 contained in the 1905 paper evince that it may
have been a mere disguise for the work of others, a puzzled hodgepodge of
pirated images.
Albert was forced, in 1907, to acknowledge that the 1905 paper was almost
entirely unoriginal, when he wrote an article for the Jahrbuch der
Radioaktivität und Elektronik,4 and presented a portion of the history behind
the theory. It is significant to note that Albert completely avoided any
mention of Poincaré, Larmor or Langevin. Albert later, in 1912, attributed the
second postulate, the principle of the constancy of light, to Lorentz and made
clear that the absolute, universal constant "celeritas" refers to a single,
privileged reference system, that of the medium at rest. In 1912, Albert called
the first postulate, the principle of relativity, "classical". According to
Albert, there is only one medium in which light propagates at c, in
vacuum--resting absolute space, but according to the principle of relativity it
is measured to propagate at c in all (legitimized/justified) frames of
reference--for the laws of a system of reference at absolute rest must also be
the laws of a system of reference in rectilinear, uniform translatory motion
relative to absolute space.5
It is significant to note that in 1912 Albert was still using improper
nomenclature (Max von Laue's6) and non-relativistic conceptualizations, in that
he wrote of Galilean-Newtonian "legitimized" or "justified" frames of reference
("berechtigtes"), instead of Lange's generic "inertial systems".
As late as 1915-16, in his paper on general relativity,7 Albert referred to a
"Galilean reference system" as the "privileged", "resting system". Albert was
not yet employing the concept of the "inertial system", which Ludwig Lange had
set forth in the year 1885.8 Ernst Gehrcke wrote expositions on Lange's
concepts in 1912-13. After Gehrcke's exposition,9 v. Laue10 adopted Lange's
proper nomenclature of the "inertial system", and it eventually became standard
jargon among Einsteinian pseudo-relativists, though they very rarely give Lange
the credit he deserves--very rarely.
Though Albert had read Mach, who had addressed Lange's "inertial system" and
who had denied the existence of absolute space, Albert clearly was not
employing the concept of the "inertial system" right up through to his first
paper on the general theory of relativity. The concept of the "inertial system"
obviates that of a privileged frame, and Albert acknowledged that the special
theory of relativity was grounded, in his mind, upon the notion of a privileged
frame (the "resting system" in the 1905 paper) and uniform translations of this
absolute space,
"The special theory of relativity is founded upon the following postulate,
which is also satisfied by Galilean-Newtonian mechanics: If a system of
coordinates K is chosen such that, with respect to it, physical laws are valid
in their simplest form, then these same laws are also valid with respect to
every other system of coordinates K', which is engaged in a uniform,
translatory motion relative to K. We call this postulate the "special principle
of relativity". By the word "special" one is to understand that the principle
is limited to the case, where K' executes a uniform, translatory motion in
comparison with K, but that the equivalence of K' and K not refer to the case
of non-uniform motion of K' with respect to K.
Therefore, the special theory of relativity does not deviate from classical
mechanics through the postulate of relativity, but rather only through the
postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuum, from which
follows in the familiar fashion, when combined with the special principle of
relativity, the relativity of synchronism as well as the Lorentz transformation
and the related laws governing the behavior of moving rigid bodies and clocks.
The modification, which the theory of space and time has undergone through the
special theory of relativity, is indeed a profound one; however, an important
point remains untouched. Even according to the special theory of relativity,
the theorems of geometry are of course to be construed directly as the laws
governing the possible relative positions of (resting) fixed bodies, more
generally the theorems of kinematics, as theorems which describe the behavior
of measuring bodies and clocks. Two distinguished material points of a resting
(rigid) body hereby always correspond to a span of wholly fixed length,
independent of position and time; two distinguished positions of the hands of a
clock resting relative to the (privileged) system of reference always
correspond to a span of time of exact length, independent of position and time.
It is soon shown, that the general theory of relativity cannot hold on to this
simple, physical construction of space and time."11
Note that Albert avers that the relativity postulate is a classical one, and
that positions in space and time are absolute in the special theory of
relativity. Albert continues to refer to this "privileged" system and states
that masses in uniform, rectilinear motion move with respect to this privileged
system of coordinates in an inertial fashion,
"K is a Galilean system of reference, i.e. one that relative to which (at least
in the four-dimensional region under consideration) a mass sufficiently remote
from others is moving rectilinearly and uniformly."
"Es sei K ein Galileisches Bezugssystem, das heist ein solches, relativ zu
welchem (mindestens in dem betrachteten vier-dimensionalen Gebiete) eine von
anderen hinlänglich entfernte Masse sich geradlinig und gleichförmig bewegt."12
This "Galilean system of reference" is "absolute space" and Euclidean uniform
translations of absolute space, not a generic "inertial system", in the sense
of Ludwig Lange, but a system mapped with reference to, equivalently: Galileo's
absolute space; Newton's absolute space; Carl Neumann's reference system
congruent to the "Body Alpha"; and Lorentz' æther, for a moving system of
coordinates, though not necessarily a Galilean transformation, is yet a
circularly defined "rectilinear, uniform translation of space", and Albert's
"law of inertia" incorporates the artificial distinction of the "state of rest"
from the "state of motion",
"The Galilean System of Coordinates. As is common knowledge, the fundamental
law of Galilean-Newtonian mechanics is what is referred to as the law of
inertia: A body which is sufficiently remote from others persists in a state of
rest or of uniform-rectilinear motion. This principle says something not only
about the motion of bodies, but also about the bodies of reference or systems
of coordinates, which are permissible in mechanics, and which may be employed
in a mechanistic description. The visible fixed stars are undoubtedly bodies
which can be useful in meeting the law of inertia with close approximation.
Now, if we use a system of coordinates, which is rigidly bound to the Earth,
then relative to it, each fixed star describes in the passage of a
(astronomical) day a circle of colossal radius, in contradiction to the
statement of the law of inertia. Therefore, if one is to adhere to this law,
then one may only refer motion to systems of coordinates, relative to which the
fixed stars do not move in a circle. We call a system of coordinates, whose
state of motion is such that, relative to it, the law of inertia prevails, a
'Galilean system of coordinates'. The laws of Galilean-Newtonian mechanics are
only valid for a Galilean system of coordinates."
"Das Galileische Koordinatensystem. Bekanntlich lautet das unter Namen
Trägheitsgesetz bekannte Grundgesetz der Galilei-Newtonischen Mechanik: Ein von
anderen Körpern hinreichend entfernter Körper verharrt im Zustande der Ruhe
oder der gleichförmiger-geradlingen Bewegung. Dieser Satz sagt nicht nur etwas
aus über die Bewegung der Körper, sondern auch über die in der Mechanik
zulässigen Bezugskörper oder Koordinatensysteme, welche bei der mechanischen
Beschreibung verwendet werden dürfen. Körper, auf welche der Trägheitssatz
sicherlich mit großer Annäherung Anwendung finden kann, sind die sichtbaren
Fixsterne. Benutzen wir nun ein Koordinatensystem, welches mit der Erde starr
verbunden ist, so beschreibt relativ zu ihm jeder Fixstern im Laufe eines
(astronomischen) Tages einen Kreis von ungeheurem Radius, im Widerspruch mit
dem Wortlaut des Trägheitsgesetzes. Hält man also an diesem Gesetze fest, so
darf man die Bewegung nur auf Koordinatensysteme beziehen, relativ zu welchen
die Fixsterne keine Kreisbewegung ausführen. Ein Koordinatensystem, dessen
Bewegungszustand ein solcher ist, daß relativ zu ihm das Trägheitsgesetz gilt,
nennen wir ein ,,Galileisches Koordinatensystem." Nur für ein Galileisches
Koordinatensystem beanspruchen die Gesetze der Galilei-Newtonischen Mechanik
Gültigkeit."13
For Ludwig Lange, these were two redundant terms, "motion" and "rest", for the
same state, the absence of force. For Lange it was not just a happy or
fascinating coincidence that the laws of kinematics precluded the detection
absolute rest, as it was for Albert and Lorentz, rather, for Lange, rest and
motion were purely relative conceptions, and the absence of force was just
that, and nothing more. For Lange, unlike Newton and unlike Albert's views in
the special theory of relativity, inertia was a truly passive principle, and
did not relate to rest or motion, per se, but to forcelessness.
We have here a shift in nomenclature. In 1912, Albert employed Max von Laue's
term "berechtigtes System", which Laue meant as a label for a generic inertial
system, and not absolute space and time. Since this system was an artifice--it
excluded "rotations" and "accelerations" in a purely arbitrary, absolutist
manner, Laue called it "justified" or "legitimized", but the term can also mean
"exclusively privileged", which is the sense in which Albert employed it in
1915-16. Albert also deviates from his 1907 stance that geometry be a function
of relative rest in any "legitimized" system, since rigid contraction and
relative simultaneity rendered moving form kinematic, to the absolute of
geometric form in the state of rest in 1916. The confusion is intrinsic in his
belief system, for all rigidly attached, rigid bodies, which begin in absolute
rest, when accelerated to achieve a rectilinear, uniform translation of space,
maintain their geometric proportions relative to their system, and thus are
absolute geometric forms when moving inertially and when resting ineritally, in
the Newtonian absolutist sense, which sense Albert adopted. Albert had to clear
away these images to make room for the non-Euclidean geometry of the
transcendental geometers, which he adopted in his general theory of relativity.
Underlying these images, for those of Minkowski's ilk, is the mystic belief
that nothing is moving, and that "inertial motion" is a spiritual awareness of
the will of bodies for change, casting delusions of motion, which warp the
absolute form of mass, its resting form made kinematic by "observation".
Observation must, therefore, be an active principle, our minds creating
dimensions, which do not mirror physical reality, but which allow us to exist
as the unchanging change of our conscious existence in an unchanging whole.
Their pseudo-relativstic absolutism seems like the long way around the fence,
to me. . . . It is truly an unintended attack on our human nature, as willful
creatures, which lends us to passive beliefs, causing us to view ourselves as
passive pocks on an absolutely ancient statue. I would rather see us as seeking
to be managers of change, illusory as our hubris may be, or at least delighters
in the hope and unexpected joy of change and choice. It is a coin toss, on one
side, you can choose to be an Einsteinian pseudo-relativist and view yourself
as fixed, infantile and passive, or, on the other, you can choose to be
scientific, adult, willful and creative. I do not wish to interject emotion
into the debate, but rather to elucidate the political force of the various
belief systems.
Of those who pursued Albert's papers, and ignoring the fact that it was
Poincaré who introduced the concept of the inertial system to the special
theory of relativity, it was Jakob Laub14 who first came closest to
comprehending the import of the "inertial system" in 1907, with his proposed
nomenclature of "System I" and "System II", as opposed to the Einsteins' 1905
"resting system" and "moving system". Minkowski,15 parroting Poincaré's prior
works, later eliminated the notion of a privileged frame from the Einsteins'
theory. However, Laub failed to fully incorporate the "inertial system" concept
in at least three ways. One, while asserting that absolute space "plays no
role" in the Einsteins' theory, Laub still spoke in absolutes, and of rest, and
failed to explicitly state that there is no such thing as absolute space. Two,
he spoke of absolute empty space as the normal medium of the light wave. Three,
had he denied the existence of absolute space, instead of merely asserting that
it played no observable role, he would have been compelled to refer the
"Systems" to Newton's laws of inertia, which are tacitly understood when one
proceeds from absolute space, to a moving system in uniform, rectilinear
translation of motion with respect to absolute space, but are by no means
understood by simply asserting two arbitrary systems in uniform motion with
respect to each other.
Oddly, and quite tellingly, if one asserts, as did the Einsteins, that a
resting æther is superfluous to a conceptualization of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies, then there is no reason whatsoever to equate the detection of
the addition of velocities of c +/- v (light's speed compounded with that of a
moving body)--the detection of relative motion with respect to the æther, with
the detection of absolute space itself, none! How can the two concepts, that of
the light medium and that of absolute space, be correlated, if an absolutely
resting æther has expressly been denied?
Poincaré's principle of relativity states,
"The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena
should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried
along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not and could not
have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a
motion."16
which absurdity stems from Poincaré's spuriously confusing Newton's Fifth
Corollary, with the straw man issue of Michelson: That the detection of
relative motion with respect to light's medium is the detection of absolute
space, as found in Poincaré's words of 1895,
"Experience reveals an abundance of facts, which can be summed up in the
following formula: it is impossible to make manifest the absolute motion of
matter, or, more correctly, the relative motion of ponderable matter with
reference to the æther; the only thing which can be observed is the motion of
ponderable matter with reference to ponderable matter."
"L'expérience a révélé une foule de faits qui peuvent se résumer dans la
formule suivante: il est impossible de rendre manifeste le mouvement absolu de
la matière, ou mieux le mouvement relatif de la matière pondérable par rapport
à l'éther; tout ce qu'on peut mettre en évidence, c'est le mouvement de la
matière pondérable par rapport à la matière pondérable." 17
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
And Sommerfeld held it up as,
"The only valid remnant of the ether concept"24
It is a matter of record that Poincaré denied the æther, denied absolute
simultaneity, proposed the light synchronization procedure as a new convention
of time measurement and integrated the principle of relativity into Lorentz'
work long before 1905. While it is clear that Albert benefitted from reading
Poincaré's Rendicotti paper submitted July 1905, as well as Poincaré's numerous
other works, Albert gave no credit to Poincaré in what Albert meant to be an
exposition on the development of the theory in 1907. Albert returned to the
æther in 1920, avowing a firm belief in it,
"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of
the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty
space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do
not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal
system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions
(distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which
physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in
itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least
formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his
absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an
absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called
his absolute space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable
objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real,
to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is
not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration
with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an
acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed
to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance;
and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at
a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which
has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the
ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from
the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not
only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its
state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of
relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of
space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are
partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under
consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the
standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that
"empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic,
compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation
potentials g), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is
physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired
an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the
ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and
kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic)
events.
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as
opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former
is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of
the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of
differential equations,; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the
absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and
is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is
transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants
for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes
which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the
general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through
relativation.
As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we
are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the
space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as
well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an
essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles
constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of
ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the
Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is
approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic
equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean
relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive
mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case
the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude,
its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density.
If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the
standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the
two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational
potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which
it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is
inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of
space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in
contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be
only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic
field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From
the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as
opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as
though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with
fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential,
instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter
are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the
electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities
which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected
causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or--as they
might also be called--space and matter.
Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the
gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified
conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded
by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast
between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of
relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought,
like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly
ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H.
Weyl,; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to
reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics
we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised
in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot
pass.
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity
space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there
exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without
ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the
physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the
quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be
tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."25
Albert later changed his mind again and asked that the "æther" never be
mentioned again.
When Minkowski declared in 1908 that,
"Neither Einstein nor Lorentz made any attack on the concept of space".26
Minkowski was entirely correct, and he meant that Mileva and Albert's "resting
system", which is found in their 1905 paper, signifies the absolute space of
Newton.
But when Minkowski averred that Albert was the first to make an attack on the
concept of time, he was grossly mistaken, and he knew that he was not telling
the truth. Voigt, Poincaré, Larmor and Lorentz were years ahead of Albert, and
it was Poincaré, not Minkowski, who first created a four-dimensional analysis
of the Lorentz group, and Minkowski knew it. Minkowski simply threw Albert a
bone, the semantical bone of contention Albert had already wrenched from
Poincaré, in Albert's 1907 paper, calling Lorentz' "time of position", "time".
The bone was nothing but straw, for the difference existed only in words, and
Poincaré and countless others had already long since disputed Newton's notion
of absolute time.
Albert's and Minkowski's (even posthumously) predilections for shortchanging
Poincaré's contributions to the special theory of relativity were immortalized
in 1913, when, shortly after Poincaré's untimely and tragic death, Lorentz
joined with Albert to produce a collection of works by H. A. Lorentz, A.
Einstein, H. Minkowski, Das Relativitätsprinzip, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig &
Berlin, (1913), a collection of papers on relativity theory, the very title of
which deserves mention of Poincaré, but not a single article from Poincaré, let
alone Larmor, FitzGerald, Voigt, Mach or Lange, is included. On the contrary,
Sommerfeld, who annotated the book, addresses only a few areas of Poincaré's
vast contribution, in his notations, and takes the opportunity to belittle
Poincaré's contribution. They were exceedingly unfair to the deceased Poincaré.
This thin book, produced one year before World War I broke out, speaks volumes
as to the objectives of Albert in assuming credit for that which was not his.
This strongly evinces that Lorentz' and Albert's accounts of the development of
relativity theory are not to be trusted.
Should we believe that the Einsteins' 1905 paper was an independent
inspiration? What is the goal of the paper? Why was it written? It is a simple,
obvious and fair question, but one which is rarely asked. Let's begin an
analysis with the title of the work,
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper),
presumably after the many works of Lorentz, for example,
"An Attempt at a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies"
(Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten
Körpern)
and
"Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity Smaller than
that of Light" (Elektromagnetische Erscheinungen in einem System, das sich mit
beliebiger, die des Lichtes nicht erreichender Geschwindigkeit bewegt),
or, perhaps, Cohn's
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Systems" (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
Systeme)
and
"On the Equations of the Electromagnetic Field for Moving Bodies" (Ueber die
Gleichungen des elektromagnetischen Feldes für bewegte Körper)
and
"On the Equations of Electrodynamics for Moving Bodies" (Über die Gleichungen
der Elektrodynamik für bewegte Körper),
or one of the many other works, which followed after Hertz' papers on the
electrodynamic equations for absolute rest and absolute motion,
"On the Fundamental Equations of Electrodynamics for Resting Bodies" (Ueber die
Grundgleichungen der Elektrodynamik für ruhende Körper)
and
"On the Fundamental Equations of Electrodynamics for Moving Bodies" (Ueber die
Grundgleichungen der Elektrodynamik für bewegte Körper).
We know from the title that the Einsteins' 1905 paper is an exposition on the
equations and concepts of electrodynamics for moving bodies, a popular subject,
with a well-known and conventional nomenclature. We further know that the terms
"moving bodies" and "resting bodies" were conventional, and referred to
absolute rest and absolute motion, ca. 1905.
The introduction of the 1905 paper further elucidates the authors' purpose.
They sought to render Maxwell's equations for moving bodies symmetrical.
Maxwell's electrodynamics was understood at the time, by some, to lead to
asymmetries, when applied to moving bodies. However, and the paper makes no
mention of this fact, Maxwell, Heaviside, Hertz, Volterra, Cohn and others, had
rendered Maxwell's electrodynamics fully symmetrical, before 1905. A straw man
is being raised in the introduction of the 1905 paper, and his name is Lorentz.
He had already burned at the stake of Cohn and Poincaré. The Einsteins saw fit
to stomp Lorentz' ashes, while pretending that they were doing a new dance.
The Einsteins are reacting in their 1905 paper to Lorentz' 1904 paper, and are
distinguishing their view by positivistically declaring the æther
"superfluous", as had many others before them, and by finding symmetry in
Maxwell's equations, as Poincaré, Cohn, Hertz, Heaviside, and many others
already had before the Einsteins.
These marks of distinction are repeated in Albert's 1907 paper on the principle
of relativity, and though Lorentz' 1904 paper is cited in Albert's 1907 paper,
rather than claim independence from it, Albert reveals that the 1905 theory is
the mere combination of Lorentz' 1904 work27 with the principle of relativity,
a feat previously accomplished publicly by Poincaré. Consider the following
quotes from the Einsteins' work:
"If, then--as follows from the theorem of the addition of velocities (§ 5)--the
vector ( u[xi], u[eta], u[zeta]) is nothing other than the velocity of the
electric masses as measured in the system k, then it is thereby shown, taking
as a basis our kinematical principles, that the electrodynamic foundation of
Lorentz' theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies corresponds to the
principle of relativity.
It may be briefly noted, that the following important proposition can easily be
inferred from the resultant equations: If an electrically charged body moves
arbitrarily through space and by moving does not change its charge, as observed
from a system of coordinates moving with the body, then its charge also--as
observed from the 'resting' system K--remains constant."
and, from 1907,
"In the following an effort is now made to fully comprehend the works, which,
heretofore, are the emergence of the combination of H. A. Lorentz' theory and
the principle of relativity. The kinematic foundations as well as the
application of the fundamental equations of the Maxwell-Lorentz theory are
treated in the first two parts of the work; I, thereby, heal, by fusing the
wound, the works of H. A. Lorentz (Versl. Kon. Akad. V. Wet., Amsterdam 1904)
and A. Einstein (Ann. D. Phys. 16 [sic], 1905)."28
As in the title of the work, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", a
distinction is drawn between moving and resting bodies throughout the 1905
paper, with "space", itself, always being associated directly with the "resting
system", and with bodies moving relative to space--with space being absolute.
Had "moving" not related to the assumption of a medium for light propagation,
"empty space", it would have been an utterly absurd distinction. As things
stood, "space" was just semantics to disguise the æther by giving it a
positivistic name, the quintessentially meaningless term "empty space".
In the context of Maxwell, the meaning of the distinction between rest and
motion was conventional and crystal clear, and the paper expressly adopts the
resting system and its equations as fundamental "laws" of the medium of the
same rank as Newton's laws of motion, and thus applicable to Newton's Fifth
Corollary, the principle of relativity of uniform motion and absolute rest.
The terminology of "resting system" and "moving systems" was the standard
language of the day, understood by all physicists of the time, even those who
disagreed with it, to mean systems of coordinates, rigid bodies, in absolute
rest and absolute motion, as per Maxwell, Hertz and Lorentz, the three main
players in the Einsteins' 1905 paper. Larmor used the same language, as well.
If Mileva and Albert had wanted to attack the concept of absolute space, they
would have done so, for they attacked the notion of absolute simultaneity,
parroting Poincaré, without mentioning his name. Instead, the Einsteins adopted
absolute space as a point of departure, and set out to demonstrate that it held
no special properties--just as Hertz, and those who followed after him, had
already done.
We soon discover in the introduction of the 1905 paper a clear statement of the
objective of the entire paper,
"These two assumptions are sufficient in order to arrive at a simple and
consistent electrodynamics of moving bodies, taking as a basis Maxwell's theory
for resting bodies."
Maxwell's theory for resting bodies is Maxwell's theory of the medium, the
æther at absolute rest. It was patently absurd of the Einsteins to write with
the same pen that the æther was superfluous, while assuming it as a basis for
their theory.
One of the "two assumptions", the first "postulate", is that the
electrodynamics of moving bodies be consistent. Of course, the reasoning
presented is circular, first assuming via the first postulate that
electrodynamics is consistent, then arguing that this mandated consistency
creates a consistency. It is the first of many circular arguments found in the
1905 paper.
In the introduction, we are being primed to venture forth from Maxwell's theory
of equations for absolutely resting bodies in the æther, so that we can return
to them, Petitio Principii, while being asked to pretend that the æther is
superfluous, so that we aren't too shocked when simultaneity is claimed to be
relative, again, Petitio Principii, via an impossible light synchronization
assumption.
We continue from the trite introduction with the goal of reconciling the
equations of moving bodies with the Maxwellian electrodynamics of resting
bodies--absolutely resting bodies in the æther, taking this absolutely resting
system as a starting point. We are asked to accept Maxwell's theory for resting
bodies as a given, and, hence, we have a point of departure to define time and
distance in absolute space--the geometry of "rest", for light speed is a
universal constant in absolute space in Maxwell's theory, our second postulate,
and an isotropic velocity represents an isotropic, rectilinear, uniform motion,
and hence, a measure of time and distance, and here is another instance of the
Einsteins' circular reasoning--equivalent to Galileo's--as will be shown.
The difficulty we supposedly face is to reconcile this given of light's
propagating at a constant velocity in its natural medium, absolute space, with
the proposal that these same "laws" of the electrodynamics of resting bodies,
which aren't "laws", but the proposed relational effects of the assumed dynamic
properties of the medium, will apply with equal validity to moving
bodies--which subtly and deceptively becomes the kinematics of moving form and
relative simultaneity--the first postulate overreached in a futile attempt to
hide the ad hoc hypotheses of length contraction and time dilatation.
Note well that the paper accepts and requires the validity of the concepts of
absolute rest and absolute velocity, and cannot proceed in the manner it does
without them, for without them there would be no axiomatic, isotropic,
rectilinear, uniform motion, but the paper calls into question absolute
simultaneity, based on them, supposedly to derive the ad hoc hypotheses of
length contraction and time dilatation, which is, of course, never
accomplished, as said hypotheses don't follow from the tacit premise of
c' = c.
Only the first order transformations can be wrenched from the tacit premise,
using the Einsteins'most inane pseudo-logic, not time dilatation or length
contraction, as was shown.
It was Poincaré who criticized Lorentz' theory as ad hoc and Lorentz himself
makes note of this fact in his 1904 paper. Albert, in his 1907 paper, notes the
criticism that Lorentz' work was "ad hoc", but makes no mention of the fact
that it was Poincaré who so stigmatized it, and Lorentz made that clear in his
1904 paper, with an assessment and a reference. Albert, quite tellingly,
avoided any mention of Poincaré in the context of the special theory of
relativity. As Albert avowed,
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
"the secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
The Einsteins were under the spell of the new school of positivism, which was
to become "Logical Positivism", and which Arthur Schuster would later
catagorize as a cowardly cop out to ignorance, and further which "Logical
Positivism" Karl Popper would systematically discredit. The Einsteins may have
believed that they could disguise their piracy of Poincaré's interpretation of
Lorentz' theory, by stating it in Poincaré's positivistic form, without
mentioning Poincaré. They also would have found in Mach references to,
"Budde's conception of space as a sort of medium."29
Schuster wrote against the emerging positivism, and the consequences of its
cowardice,
"I have during these lectures contrasted on several occasions the former
tendency to base our technical explanations of natural phenomena on definite
models which we can visualise and even constuct, with the modern spirit which
is satisfied with a mathematical formula, and symbols which frequently have no
strictly definable meaning. I ought to explain the distinction between the two
points of view which represent two attitudes of mind, and I can do so most
shortly by referring to the history of the electro-dynamic theory of light, the
main landmarks of which I have already pointed out in the second lecture. The
undulatory theory--as it left the hands of Thomas Young, Fresnel and
Stokes--was based on the idea that the æther possessed the properties of an
elastic solid. Maxwell's medium being quite different in its behaviour, its
author at first considered it to be necessary to justify the possibility of its
existence, by showing how, by means of fly wheels and a peculiar cellular
construction, we might produce a composite body having the required properties.
Although later Maxwell laid no further stress on the ultimate construction of
the medium, his ideas remained definite and to him the displacements which
constituted the motion of light possessed a concrete reality. In estimating the
importance of the support which Maxwell's views have received from experiment,
we must distinguish between the fundamental assumptions on which Maxwell based
his investigations and the mathematical formulæ which were the outcome of these
investigations. It is clearly the mathematical formulæ only which are confirmed
and the same formulæ might have been derived from quite different premises. It
has always been necessary, as a second step of great discovery, to clear away
the immaterial portions which are almost invariable accessories of the first
pioneer work, and Heinrich Hertz, who besides being an experimental
investigator was a philosopher of great perspicacity, performed this part of
the work thoroughly. The mathematical formula instead of being the result
embodying the concrete ideas, now became the only thing which really mattered.
To use an acute and celebrated expression of Gustav Kirchhoff, it is the object
of science to describe natural phenomena, not to explain them. When we have
expressed by an equation the correct relationship between different natural
phenomena we have gone as far as we safely can, and if we go beyond we are
entering on purely speculative ground. I have nothing to say against this as a
philosophic doctrine, and I shall adopt it myself when lying on my death-bed,
if I have then sufficient strength to philosophise on the limitations of our
intellect. But while I accept the point of view as a correct death-bed
doctrine, I believe it to be fatal to a healthy development of science.
Granting the impossibility of penetrating beyond the most superficial layers of
observed phenomena, I would put the distinction between the two attitudes of
mind in this way: One glorifies our ignorance, while the other accepts it as a
regrettable necessity. The practical impediment to the progress of physics, of
what may reluctantly be admitted as correct metaphysics, is both real and
substantial and might be illustrated almost from any recent volume of
scientific periodicals. Everyone who has ever tried to add his mite to
advancing knowledge must know that vagueness of ideas is his greatest
stumbling-block. But this vagueness which used to be recognised as our great
enemy is now being enshrined as an idol to be worshipped. We may never know
what constitutes atoms or what is the real structure of the æther, why trouble
therefore, it is said, to find out more about them. Is it not safer, on the
contrary, to confine ourselves to a general talk on entropy, luminiferous
vectors and undefined symbols expressing vaguely certain physical
relationships? What really lies at the bottom of the great fascination which
these new doctrines exert on the present generation is sheer cowardice: the
fear of having its errors brought home to it. As one who believes that
metaphysics is a study apart from physics, not to be mixed up with it, and who
considers that the main object of the physicist is to add to our knowledge,
without troubling himself much as to how that knowledge may ultimately be
interpreted, I must warn you against the temptation of sheltering yourself
behind an illusive rampart of safety. We all prefer being right to being wrong,
but it is better to be wrong that to be neither right not wrong."30
What even Schuster could not have anticipated, was the sheer political force
and hero worship which would accompany the grand cowardice and shameless
plagiarism of positivism, and the great threat the positivistic
pseudo-scientist would pose to our world, and that of our progeny.
Herbert Dingle warned of the dangers of the anti-rational psychosis induced by
Logical Positivism in its pseudo-relativistic adherents, with its celebration
of the denial of physical reality, its solipsisms, hypocrisy, numerology, and
semantics, with the positivists' accepting fallacy as fact. Dingle asked us all
to consider that we place our lives in the hands of a class of
pseudo-scientists, who see as their goal the denial of the physical world, as
for them it is an illusion, and instead pursue the shameless and unchecked
promotion of their myths. Herbert Dingle, whose words were allegedly often
effectively suppressed, stated, inter alia,
"The facts must be faced. To a degree never previously attained, the material
future of the world is in the hands of a small body of men, on whose not merely
superficially apparent but absolute, intuitive (in Bergson's sense of the word)
integrity the fate of all depends, and that quality is lacking. Where there was
once intellectual honesty they have now merely the idea that they possess it,
the most insidious and the most dangerous of all usurpers; the substitution is
shown by the fruits, which are displayed in unmistakable clarity in the facts
described here. After years of effort I am forced to conclude that attempts
with the scientific world to awaken it from its dogmatic slumber are in vain. I
can only hope that some reader of these pages, whose sense of reality exceeds
that of the mathematicians and physicists and who can command sufficient
influence, might be able from the outside to enforce attention to the danger
before it is too late."31
Despite its irrational loathing of the very metaphysics which made its
formation possible, this positivistic cult was the new rage in Physics at the
beginning of the 20th Century. Joseph Larmor wrote in 1900,
"At the same time all that is known (or perhaps need be known) of the aether
itself may be formulated as a scheme of differential equations defining the
properties of a continuum in space, which it would be gratuitous to further
explain by any complication of structure; though we can with great advantage
employ our stock of ordinary dynamical concepts in describing the succession of
different states thereby defined."32
Albert adopted this numerological stance, which numerological stance Wilhelm
Reich expressed in the following terms,
"the 'elimination of the ether' and its substitution by equations".33
Paul Drude stated,
"The velocity of light in space [***] independent of what is understood by a
light vector. [***] The conception of an ether absolutely at rest is the most
simple and the most natural,--at least if the ether is conceived to be not a
substance but merely space endowed with certain physical properties."34
Cohn averred,
"Like Maxwell and Hertz we address a chemically and physically homogenous
medium as an entity, which is also completely characterized at all points
electromagnetically by the same value of some constants. This type of medium
fills each element of our space; it is perhaps a certain ponderable substance,
or it may also be the vacuum. In light of this, we will avoid continuing to
speak of an 'æther'."
"Wie Maxwell und Hertz behandeln wir ein chemisch und physikalisch homogenes
Medium als ein Gebilde, welches auch elektromagnetisch in allen Punkten durch
die gleichen Werte einiger Constanten vollständig charakterisiert ist. Ein
solches Medium erfüllt jedes Element unseres Raumes; es kann eine bestimmte
ponderable Substanz oder auch das Vacuum sein. Daneben noch von einem ,,Aether"
zu sprechen, werden wir vermeiden."35
William Kingdon Clifford speculated that light may be naught but flickering
space,
"In order to explain the phenomena of light, it is not necessary to assume
anything more than a periodical oscillation between two states at any given
point of space."36
The positivistic statement that the æther is superfluous to science was not
original to the Einsteins, has its origins in the debate of the 1600's over
whether Physics, which is physical, ought to also be mathematical, which
mathematics is not physical; as well as Bacon's religious mumbo-jumbo, and is a
cowardly cop out to our ignorance of that which has dimension as "empty space",
but from which "empty space" we feel no resistence. Logical Positivism is
quickly reduced to the absurdity that there is no such thing as knowledge--no
such thing as science.
The logical positivists attacked religion and Metaphysics, then adopted their
most abstract product, pure mathematics, absurdly denying that mathematics is
religious or metaphysical, when mathematics is both numerology and ontology in
their most primitive form, symbolism. The logical positivists hover about an
equation with the enthusiasm and sense of wonder with which a lunatic gazes
into a crystal ball, fascinated that it might predict the future. The logical
positivist is a hypocrite, who pretends that predicting the future with
mathematics is other than religiously gazing into a crystal ball, for the
logical positivist denies that the mathematics mirrors physical reality, and
yet asserts that mathematics as the only means of understanding existence.
In terms of theories of optics, logical positivism is the blind and frantic
submission to our ignorance of what fills "empty space", though we know that
this medium is filled with wave disturbances. The denial of the æther was
nothing but a gimmick to steal credit for the work of æther theorists, by
changing their terms, and nothing more. Positivism, truly dating from Bacon,
strangely, became piracy, piracy through semantics. Newton did it, and the
Einsteins aped Newton, dubbing the æther "superfluous", while hoarding its long
extant formulas.
Many were appalled by the Newtonian effort to reduce human understanding to the
non-physical, unsophisticated metaphysics of pure mathematics, noting that the
mathematics did not fall from the heavens, like an apple from a tree, but
resulted from human insight and the sophisticated metaphysics overseeing the
mixed sciences from at least the time of the Greeks onward to their day, and
that others had presented the mathematics, for which Newton took credit,first.
Many knew that it was numerology to attempt to understand the workings of
gravity as pure mathematics, which math is not physical, but is entirely
abstract, physically contradicted, ontological metaphysics. Many today share
that same insight. There is an interpretive element between measurement and
mathematics, which the positivists would have us pretend does not exist, for
they rarely come up with anything new, and often only assume credit for that
which they take from those who aren't afraid to think, by denying the truth in
what they steal, while hiding behind it, mathematically. The positivists are
seemingly oblivious to the facts, that measurement is subjective, and, that
mathematics is entirely metaphysical. They are seemingly oblivious to their
hypocrisy, at least they pretend to be in their plagiaristic acts.
Karl Pearson, after the commonly perceived image of Mach, advocated a
positivistic, anti-scientific approach, which glorifies ignorance and promotes
adherence to dogmatic definitions, in The Grammar of Science, 2nd Ed., Adam and
Charles Blick, London, (1900). This remarkable book, at once filled with so
many brilliant insights, yet fraught with so many disastrous contradictions and
hypocrisies, could well have been the Einsteins' bible. It provided them with a
window of opportunity to assume credit for Lorentz' work, by making it
positivistic--surreally reducing a mechanical theory to the most abstract of
ontological metaphysical nonsense--pure, though twisted, mathematics, and in an
utterly irrational, pseudo-kinematic form. Rational metaphysics are essential
to Physics. Positivism is the utter destruction of reason. Positivism is a
political weapon institutionally used to control language, and thus thought,
and to misrepresent priorities, it is "newspeak", where "war" is "peace", and
the "æther" is "empty space".
Even if the Einsteins had cut to the quick of the process of "deriving" the
Lorentz Transformation (Petitio Pricipii), an inconsequential act, for the
transformation group already existed in its essence in 1887, long before 1905,
they would have stropped Ockham's razor on Poincaré's and Lorentz' backs, and
without giving either man due credit for his work.
While the papers of Poincaré and Lorentz are clear, easy to read, and readily
understood, the Einsteins' paper is substantially more obscure, probably
because the Einsteins lacked the insight of the originators, and further
because, having been schooled as to the superficial, linguistic nature of the
concepts (they apparently copied numerous passages virtually word-for-word),
they believed the words held obvious meaning and failed to understand that
these somewhat difficult and less than obvious notions have an internally
consistent theoretical basis, which the Einsteins were violating in their
positivistic, Petitio Principii collage of pirated images. The paper becomes
nonsensical in its modern interpretation, such that, even for its adherents, it
is better understood in its proper historical context of absolute rest and
absolute motion.
Albert suppressed a 1912 manuscript he wrote on special relativity, which does
not hide Lorentz' contribution, nor the assumption of a privileged frame. This
work is a far more lucid exposition than is the Einsteins' 1905 paper, which is
an apparent disguise for Lorentz' work. Of course, 7 years of contemplation,
numerous outside works and discussions should have rendered any theory more
lucid, but there is nothing new in the 1912 paper, as far as the fundamental
understanding of the Lorentz group, which could not have been stated in 1905.
Poincaré, for example, demonstrated a far greater understanding of the issues
involved, and sought the formulation of a truly general relativity theory in
1905.37 Poincaré, too, was less than revolutionary, and was not always
forthcoming with the names of those from whom he drew inspiration, unless he
sought to criticize them.
Poincaré was aware of the difficulties in discriminating so-called "inertial
systems" in Nature, and Poincaré was further aware that accelerations defeat
the principle of relativity. The term "inertial system" was first used in
Ludwig Lange's, "Über die wissenschaftliche Fassung des Galilei'schen
Beharrungsgesetzes", Philosophische Studien, 2, (1885), p. 273. Comparing the
clarity and insight of Lange's original thought with the Einsteins' diluted,
second, third or fourth-hand synopsis of these ideas, demonstrates that the
Einsteins' work was hardly original, and was rather poorly presented. The 1905
paper becomes nonsensical when it is forced into a form it did not originally
take--that of the modern special theory of relativity, based on Lange's
"Inertialsystem", or space as a uniform translation without a privileged frame,
with "space-time" as an absolute, quadri-dimensional manifold.
The facts contradict those who claim priority for the Einsteins' 1905 paper,
based on the two postulate myth. The assertion is often made that length
contraction and time dilatation were not hypothesized in the 1905 paper, but
were derived and do not represent physical effects, but are merely matters of
perspective--though no explanation is forthcoming as to how this perspective of
measurement is achieved, other than Petitio Principii, for the prescribed
measurement procedure is never performed by human beings--cannot be performed
in the physical--and, therefore, cannot be the cause or the correlation of
anything, and is not a "measurement procedure", but a Petitio Principii
pseudo-argument--fallacy.
No explanation is forthcoming as to what this so-called "perspective" of
non-simultaneous measurement is, which "perspective" was formerly called
"physical reality". Defining length contraction and time dilatation as the
consequence of relative simultaneity, in a theory in which relative
simultaneity is the consequence of pseudo-measurements in an impossible light
synchronization process, with false premises, which tacitly presumes length
contraction and time dilatation as a proportionality factor, and through the
delusion of pretending that an anisotropic clock, light, is an isotropic clock,
celeritas, is again the fallacy of Petitio Principii, piled on top of the
Einsteins' numerous other irrational sins, in order to hide them.
Attributing length contraction and time dilatation to "relative simultaneity"
is simply giving a new set of words for a dynamic process we can theoretically
observe, while pretending that nothing is happening in an absolute,
quadri-dimensional world which we cannot perceive, but which only exists in a
mathematical Gestalt linkage conjured up from irrational pretenses--false
symbols and broken rules. Attacking the pseudo-relativists' delusions of
"relative simultaneity" is like arguing against a string of three lies, by
arguing against the third lie, for you have then admitted the first two, by not
addressing them.
The "perspective" excuse for the piracy of Lorentz' theory came much after
1905, and resulted from Albert's critics, as did much of the later theory,
though Albert somehow is awarded credit for these ideas, as well, which ideas
he initially had vehemently opposed.
This "derivation" of the Lorentz Transformation is immediately suspect, for
Voigt had arrived at the so-called "Lorentz Transformation" in 1887,38 and
Larmor re-set the relativistic scale in the 1890's. There is no rational basis
for the Einsteins' having adopted FitzGerald's and Larmor's scale factor of ,
other than if the Einsteins were simply copying it, either directly, or through
Lorentz and Poincaré.
The Einsteins' 1905 paper, despite its modern misinterpretation, transforms
tri-dimensional rigid bodies and uni-dimensional resting clocks--uniform
motions--from one reference frame at absolute rest into another in uniform
motion by artificially and irrationally setting a pretend, universally
homogenous and isotropic c' as equal to the measurement of a pretend,
universally homogenous and isotropic c, as a congruent, incongruent scale
system, thereby begging the question of the compatibility of the two
incompatible postulates, and setting the change in scale of the coordinates for
bodies in motion through a proportionality factor, which actions were of
themselves intrinsically the presumption of kinematic length contraction, time
dilatation, and relative simultaneity, not the "derivation" of them. One does
not legitimately "derive" a natural change in the standard Galilean-Euclidean
Transformation for uniform translations of absolute space by compelling it with
the addition of artificial constants to the variables, nor is one justified in
begging the question, by artificially setting c' = c quasi-geometrically and
thereby stating the conclusion that light speed is invariant, as measured; or,
as the 1905 paper states the conclusionary process:
"Now, we have to prove that every ray of light propagates with the velocity c
as measured in the moving system, in case this is, as we have taken for
granted, the case in the resting system, because we still have not offered up
the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is
reconcilable with the principle of relativity."
identically as the previously stated premise that light speed is invariant, as
measured in the moving system; or, as the paper states prior to the above
conclusion:
"It is easy, with the help of this result, to ascertain the magnitudes [xi],
[eta], [zeta], because one expresses by means of these equations, that light
(as the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in conjunction
with the principle of relativity, requires) also propagates with the velocity c
as measured in the moving system."
The Einsteins' irrational blunder of stating the conclusion as the premise,
their pernicious habit of Petitio Principii, was perhaps not made through naïve
carelessness, but through an effort to disguise the fact that they were aping
Poincaré's interpretation of Lorentz' theory. The two postulates do not
intrinsically agree, prior to Lorentz geometry, no matter how many sets of
coordinates of uniform translation one artificially imposes on continuous
space.
The "two postulates" are seemingly smoke screens used in the 1905 paper to
avoid the disclosure that the Einsteins' theory was an unoriginal, somewhat
Cohnesque, form of the Lorentz Transformation, which was in fact the
Boscovich-Voigt-FitzGerald-Larmor-Lorentz-Langevin-Poincaré Transformation--a
quite well-known, multi-party theory by 1905, and, hence, quite a mouthful to
recount.
It is not possible to infer the Lorentz Transformation from the "two
postulates" via the method the Einsteins attempted, and as the "two postulates"
are framed in the 1905 paper. The addition of velocities of c +/- v, which is
assumed between light and the moving system in the "resting system" renders
geometrically meaningless the given identity of
c' = c,
which the Einsteins artificially forced between the resting and moving systems,
unless the means of measurement in the moving system are presumed different,
which presumption in the 1905 paper appears as an unjustified "kinematic"
mystery, as opposed to the true "geometric" form, the paper supposes, disclosed
by irrational "inertial motion" to which the paper pretends. The Einsteins even
felt compelled to warn us that they had presumed length contraction, before
they supposedly "derive it" with the following false premise and non sequiturs,
"The length to be discovered in the case of procedure b), which we want to call
'the length of the (moving) rod in the resting system', we will determine on
the basis of our two principles and find that it differs from l.
The kinematics in general use tacitly takes for granted that the lengths
determined by both of the stated procedures are the exactly same, or, in other
words, that a moving rigid body in the epoch of time t is, in geometrical
respects, an exact substitute for the same body, when it rests in a fixed
position."
Now, if it is
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
the resting body, why must we assume that the two distinct bodies are "in all
respects the same" merely because they are "reciprocally different"? Is
"relative simultaneity" absolute? Is it Galilean with a butchered definition of
simultaneity? If not, why pretend that "reciprocally different" means
"identical"?
The Einsteins' fundamental error in 1905 was in setting out to prove that the
"two postulates" are intrinsically compatible, instead of synthetically, a
posteriori, establishing the "principle of relativity" as a corollary to the
light hypothesis--coupled with Lorentzian geometry, as did Lorentz and
Poincaré. The Einsteins may have made this blunder by aping Poincaré, without
fully understanding him. They may have made it by disguising Lorentz' theory.
Perhaps the two alternatives are one fact.
Since the 1905 paper addresses absolute motion, the "twins paradox" is no
paradox at all in the 1905 paper, where it appears as the rate of a clock in
absolute motion compared to the rate of an absolutely resting clock, and,
equivalently, as the divergent rates of clocks found at the poles and the
equator of the Earth. This is a refutation of Poincaré's principle of
relativity, which expressly states that absolute motion is undetectable. It is
also a refutation of the Einsteins' principle of relativity, which asserts
that,
"the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties of
the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics".
The so-called "relativity postulate" is not a postulate at all in the special
theory of relativity. Rather, the "principle of relativity" is a corollary
(just as in Newton's Principia, it is a corollary to the laws of motion) to the
assertions, that light speed is isotropic and invariant in all inertial
systems, and that the detection of light's medium equates to the detection of
absolute space--a common corollary made by Everett, FitzGerald, Larmor,
Lorentz, Rowland, Poincaré, Langevin, etc. . . . The Einsteins' referring to
this corollary as a "postulate" is another instance of their irrationality, and
their need to hide the fact that they were simply parroting Lorentz and
Poincaré, though they probably weren't as clever as I imply, and simply
parroted Poincaré verbatim, without much, if any, insight of their own.
Poincaré made puns of the "two postulates" and irrationally exploited these
puns, taking Roemer's assumptions of a finite speed to, and uniform motion of,
light, and using this language of simultaneous events in confusion with
Lorentz' irrational assumption of invariant celeritas between relatively moving
frames, and by further taking Newton's Fifth Corollary to the inertial Laws of
Motion, and confusing its language of action and reaction with Lorentz'
assumption of invariant celeritas between relatively moving frames, by
irrationally confusing the detection of the æther, with the detection of
absolute position.
Poincaré knew better, even if he didn't act better, and qualified his
statements as he made them, knowing full well that he was exploiting the myths
and legends of the day, as well as his puns, to create a semantic fallacy.
It was Lorentz, who properly phrased the corollary of relativity in 1904,
"It would be more satisfactory, if it were possible to show, by means of
certain fundamental assumptions, and without neglecting terms of one order of
magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely
independent of the motion of the system."
Notice that Lorentz, for one, realized that the principle of relativity is a
corollary, which results from "fundamental assumptions", among these, the law
of inertia (being the same as the law of force, and the law of equal and
opposite action and reaction), the hypotheses of length contraction, time
dilatation and relative simultaneity (being the same as "position-time"), and
the theory of Maxwell's equations for the medium.
Exactly the same can be said of Poincaré's "light postulate" ( which differs
from the Einsteins', in that it states that the speed of light is invariant for
all inertial systems--definitionally), for it, too, is a corollary to the
aforesaid "fundamental assumptions". If the Einsteins, in 1905, had properly
formulated their theory, stating the principle of relativity as the Corollary
it is, was, and will always be, they would have disclosed that they were
drawing Lorentz' inference. They opted for irrationality, their disguise,
instead. It paid off for them, as a century of flakes and sycophants lauded
what was patently irrational on its face, the Einsteins' two postulate myth.
The Einsteins averred,
"that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties
of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, on the
contrary, for all systems of coordinates, for which the equations of mechanics
are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are also valid, as has
already been proven for the magnitudes of the first order."
which is merely an extension of Newton's "Fifth Corollary" to Newton's "Laws of
Motion" (based on the Einsteins' artificially and semantically
quasi-positivistically defining Maxwell's dynamic process of the equations for
light propagation in its medium, as a new "Law of Motion"). Newton's Fifth
Corollary, the so-called "principle of relativity", reads as follows,
"The motions of bodies included in a given space are the same among themselves,
whether that space is at rest, or moves uniformly forwards in a right line
without any circular motion.
For the differences of the motions tending towards the same parts, and the sums
of those that tend towards contrary parts, are, at first (by supposition), in
both cases the same; and it is from those sums and differences that the
collisions and impulses do arise with which the bodies mutually impinge one
upon another. Wherefore (by Law II), the effects of those collisions will be
equal in both cases; and therefore the mutual motions of the bodies among
themselves in the one case will remain equal to the mutual motions of the
bodies among themselves in the other. A clear proof of which we have from the
experiment of a ship; where all motions happen after the same manner, whether
the ship is at rest, or is carried uniformly forwards in a right line."
and the "first postulate" is not a new "postulate" at all, but an archaic and
religiously arcane Corollary, based on false premises, those of the
mythological "inertial system" implicit in Newton's bogus "laws of motion".
The "paradox of the twins", in the 1905 paper, is not a paradox, but rather a
prediction of the effects of the absolute motion of moving bodies, for a clock
at the equator necessarily has greater absolute velocity than a clock at one of
the poles, due to the Earth's absolute rotation, and the assertion is therefore
not a paradox, per se, but an express and internal contradiction of the
Einsteins' theoretical requirement that absolute space evince no characteristic
properties--that it, and its effects, be indiscernible, or, as the Einsteins
euphemistically disguised it, the non-paradox was an "eigentümliche Konsequenz"
of absolute motion. I suppose that one might argue with a fair degree of merit
that the Einsteins' stipulation was that absolute rest evinces no
characteristic properties, and not absolute motions, such as accelerations and
time dilatation effects. . . they never expressly exclude the possibility of
the detection of absolute space "by any and all means", in the 1905 paper.
Though the Einsteins repeatedly blundered in attempting to formulate a theory
of inference from the "two postulates" to the Lorentz Transformation, the
question remains as to whether or not such a feat can be rationally achieved,
and I use the term "rationally" loosely, as I don't consider the
Poincaré-Lorentz theory of relativity to be a rational theory of measurement,
in whatever guise or disguise it is attempted. There is an artificial
assumption made in all such "derivations" that c' = c, isotropically, which has
no meaning as an identity, but is rather an irrational comparison of two
forced--definitional abstractions. We know that all velocities are
conceptualized from other measurements made with material apparatus in the form
of "rigid bodies" and "relatively resting clocks"--uniform motions, and
velocity is not a direct measurement in and of itself.
This unwarranted, ad hoc assumption, that c' = c coupled with other artificial
constants, is an equivalent disguise for the scale factor and fundamentally
abuses the concept of a geometric constant. Neither postulate, as framed in
1905, asserts that c' = c, but rather, c' = c is assumed to be the logical
conclusion of the combination of the two postulates, though it is not. Since
neither postulate avers that c' = c, its assumption, as a premise, to arrive
back at it, as a conclusion, is an argument made in a circle. Furthermore, by
way of analogy, one does not take a meter stick at a given temperature, and
equate it, and measurements taken with it, at another temperature, as a
constant--the same meter stick in all respects equivalent to itself--except for
its complete difference from itself in different physical states. The concept
of ceteris paribus is utterly abused by artificially setting variables as
constants, or c' = c, and further by coupling this delusion of variables as
dimensions with other variables and proportionality factors--as though
reciprocally equivalent.
At best, based exclusively on the combination of the two postulates, we can
assert Petitio Principii that axiomatic celeritas is ideally geometrically
equivalent to measurements of pretend spans of homogenous and isotropic ideal
æther--distances and pretend, circularly defined uniform motions--time in the
pretend resting system of Maxwell's equations for the medium which we pretend
rests, absolute space, since it is the intrinsic, dynamic velocity of
propagation in the medium, which is, by definition only, ontologically
homogenous and isotropic; and, that physically determined c' is arrived at by
measurements of d' and t' in the moving system made with co-moving, rigid
material apparatus, and any algebraic transformation presented to equate d to
d' and t to t' incorporates ad hoc new assumptions, tacitly, or explicitly, and
is not the creation of an identity, but a fallacy of false comparison. Another
fallacy is that bodies in a definite state of motion--bodies in absolute
motion--have a kinematic shape when observed by resting observers in resting
space, which is to say that moving bodies suffer from a contraction in the line
of their absolute motion, which distortion is observable to absolutely resting
observers, but these moving bodies return to their geometric shape--their shape
when at absolute rest--when observed by co-moving, rigidly-attached observers,
who are identically distorted in their kinematic shape, and therefore cannot
perceive the change. If you shrink in the identical proportion together with
the stick with which you measure yourself, the measurement you take will remain
unchanged. Likewise, moving observers view resting bodies in their kinematic
form, not their true geometric resting form. Attributing this supposed
distortion to "relative simultaneity", by causing it through "relative
simultaneity" is yet another instance of Petitio Principii found in the special
theory of relativity. It is a cause attributed to circularly defined words, and
nothing else. That artificially and arbitrarily defined "relative simultaneity"
causes length contraction and time dilatation on paper, Petitio Principii,
should not be understood to mean that length contraction and time dilatation do
not occur physically, if they are detected by means of measurement, which means
have nothing to do with the Einsteins' preposterous and impossible "method of
measurement". Bodies in different physical states behave differently--which
should come as no surprise to anyone. The measurement delusion is simply an
instance of the positivist's burying his or her head in the sand to award his
or her hero, Albert Einstein, credit for a theory which was not his, or hers. .
. .
The ad hoc assumptions arrived at by Lorentz and the Einsteins are thus
identical in their expressions and predictions, and differ only metaphysically
and semantically, with Poincaré trumping the Einsteins on the issue of
metaphysical and semantic priority, as well.
All versions of the Lorentz Transformation are "derived" from the premise that
c' is measured to equal c, which is without geometric meaning, if simultaneity
is relative, and, therefore, no version is satisfactory. There is no identity
where there is no simultaneity or constant scale. There is no one relation
being measured. We can set a pound of peaches equal to a pound of pears as an
abstract algebraic identity, but we cannot assert that the same "body" is being
measured in reality, and we cannot transform peaches into pears by their purely
abstract identity as "weights". The same holds true for continuous space and
time, which do not equate to variable bodies and motions, but exist
conceptually in and of themselves as existence, per se.
We cannot rationally assert that the same "celeritas" is being measured by two
distinct realities, that of independent systems K and k, even if we assume that
the "same light" is being observed. There is no "transformation" to be had. The
light being measured is not the abstract quantity, celeritas, but a physical
phenomenon. The time being measured is, therefore, not being measured by
omnidirectional, isotropic clocks, for light is not an isotropic clock for
systems in relative motion. Utilizing an anisotropic clock, light, to determine
conceptualized simultaneity, is fundamentally irrational. "Celeritas" is a
derived unit itself, abstracted in conceptualizing a relation between measured
time and measured distance, and relates only to the system in which it is
measured, by definition. It is truly relative, and never absolute. Light, as a
physical phenomenon, should not be confused with a rigid geometry posturing as
an abstract invariant speed. Speed is abstracted from measurement, it cannot be
measured, per se. We can never measure velocity. There is no such physical
thing as distance divided by time. Speed is an abstraction. Light is a
physically real wave disturbance.
Stanley Goldberg's impression of the two postulates found in his work
Understanding Relativity39 is typical of the modern view. He claims three
distinguishable versions of each postulate, as being equivalent. For the first
postulate, Goldberg conveys the following definitions, as though equivalent:
"a. The laws of physics have the same form in all inertial frames of reference.
b. The laws of physics are covariant in all inertial frames of reference.
c. No experiment can be performed to determine which of two different inertial
frames of reference is moving."
Note that statements "a" and "b" are positive statements. Statement "c" is a
negative statement. It is a non sequitur to assume that the positive statements
"a" and "b" are equivalent to the negative statement "c". What if "a" and "b"
were not true? What if the opposite of "a" and "b" were assumed to be true?
Would experiment then reveal which of two "inertial frames" in relative motion
was "moving" or "resting"? The answer is, NO!
The entire issue is silly semantics based on a false definition. Semantically,
both move and both rest--in human misconceptions brought on by language. The
inane definition of the forcelessness of the force of inertia implies that the
relative motion between two inertial systems, each in relative motion to the
other, is a bizarre reciprocal state, the motion of each being the motion of
the other, with no cause to either motion, for each rests forcelessly, but with
accelerations being caused by the force of action-reaction. In other words,
nothing is causing one, the other, or both inertial systems to move, other than
their relation to each other as resting-moving systems. Nothing could be more
anthropomorphic! The concept of relativity believes physical occurrences to be
the result of our perceptions, instead of our perceptions resulting from
physical occurrences. Surely, non-inertial motions are the same as inertial
motions, all being due to the change of the universe--all being change, and,
ultimately, resulting from neither force nor forcelessness. Neither inertial
system endures so as to be able to move, or to rest. The universe changes. Only
words endure--commands to our imaginations, which we train ourselves to obey,
in spite of our observations, which observations discredit the misbegotten
words and images of language.40 And as Larmor pointed out in 1900, should we
view the universe as a whole, force is meaningless, but as a local issue, it is
a useful abstraction.41
The negative statement of the principle of relativity is not the same as the
positive statement of the principle of relativity. There simply is no absolute,
unchanging world, regardless of the nature of our laws, be they the same, or
divergent, among artificial inertial systems. The principle of relativity is
today a straw man, initially raised to knock down the myths of the Ptolemaic
system. It has nothing to do with light or velocity. It is the psychological
perception we have when our inner ears lead us to feel that we are "at rest".
Why must we assume that this feeling has anything whatsoever to do with
"absolute position" as a positive, or as a negative, assertion?
Goldberg claims that the second postulate equivalently signifies:
"a. The speed of light in empty space is an invariant.
b. The speed of light in empty space is the same in all directions and is
independent of the motion of the source or the observer.
c. The speed of light in empty space has the same value in all inertial frames
of reference."
Statement "a", if amended to include the stipulation that the speed of light is
finite, would represent the view of Cassini and Roemer. If the criterion
Goldberg artificially adds (which is not stated in the 1905 paper), "or the
observer" is dropped, as it must be, then statement "b" is the definition of a
wave propagation in a homogenous and isotropic medium, and is the
Huygens-Maxwell-Hertz-Larmor-Lorentz-Einstein view for the resting system--the
medium of propagation. Statement "c" is ambiguous, for it can be interpreted as
Galilean, or as Lorentzian. Statement "c", if qualified to be Lorentzian, is
expressly the conclusion of the 1905 paper, not one of its postulates, for the
paper expressly states,
"It is easy, with the help of this result, to ascertain the magnitudes [xi],
[eta], [zeta], because one expresses by means of these equations, that light
(as the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in conjunction
with the principle of relativity, requires) also propagates with the velocity c
as measured in the moving system."
Goldberg has accurately recounted the modern view of the two postulates, with
their ambiguities and puns intact, which modern view is demonstrably false.
In the modern and false interpretation of the "two postulates", they are
redundant to each other, both stating that Maxwell's equations yield the same
value for the speed of light in all inertial systems, and are therefore the
fallacy of Petitio Principii,
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
That the Einsteins intended their "resting system" to signify Maxwell's
absolute space is further evinced by their statement,
"These two assumptions are sufficient in order to arrive at a simple and
consistent electrodynamics of moving bodies, taking as a basis Maxwell's theory
for resting bodies."
Maxwell formalized the absolute velocity of light as a dynamic process in the
æther. The absolute velocity of light was stated numerous times in history, for
example by Cassini and Roemer (ca. 1676) and Bradley (ca. 1729). W. Stanley
Jevons wrote in the 1870's,
"In a first subclass we may place the velocity of light or heat undulations,
the numbers expressing the relation between the lengths of undulations, and the
rapidity of the undulations, these numbers depending only on the properties of
the ethereal medium, and being probably the same in all parts of the
universe."53
In 1922, Albert defined the second postulate as occurring exclusively in
absolute space,
"I had a chance to read Lorentz's monograph of 1895. He discussed and solved
completely the problem of electrodynamics within the first [order of]
approximation, namely neglecting terms of orders higher than v / c, where v is
the velocity of a moving body and c is the velocity of light. Then I tried to
discuss the Fizeau experiment on the assumption that the Lorentz equations for
electrons should hold in the frame of reference of the moving body as well as
in the frame of reference of the vacuum as originally discussed by Lorentz. At
that time I firmly believed that the electrodynamic equations of Maxwell and
Lorentz were correct. Furthermore, the assumption that these equations should
hold in the reference frame of the moving body leads to the concept of the
invariance of the velocity of light, which, however, contradicts the addition
rule of velocities in mechanics."54
Several of Albert's essential beliefs are evident in this statement. He asserts
that the vacuum, Lorentz' absolute space, represents a privileged frame. It is
clear that Albert viewed the invariance of light between frames as different
from the second postulate, which was exclusively the constancy of light speed
in the privileged reference frame of the vacuum. Moving frames are expressed as
frames of reference in absolute motion with respect to the privileged frame of
the vacuum. The principle of relativity is a corollary, and it contradicts the
modern misinterpretation of the second postulate (the assertion that light
speed is finite, invariant, and isotropic between relatively moving inertial
systems) without further hypotheses, i.e., length contraction, time dilatation
and relative simultaneity.
When Albert stated that the principle of relativity only apparently
contradicted the light "postulate", it was clear that he was admitting that the
principle of relativity was a corollary, not a postulate, and that it, as well
as the light "postulate", were corollaries to hypothesized Lorentz geometry.
Philipp Frank makes clear that Albert simply disguised Lorentz' theory
positivistically, without changing it,
"This law [***] may be called the relativity principle of mechanistic physics.
It is a deduction from the Newtonian laws of motion and deals only with
relative motions and not, as Newton's laws proper, with absolute motion. In
this form it is a positive assertion, but it can also be formulated in a
negative way, thus: It is impossible by means of experiments such as those
described above to differentiate one inertial system from another. [***]
Besides this 'principle of relativity,' Einstein needed a second principle
dealing with the interaction of light and motion. He investigated the influence
of the motion of the source of light on the velocity of light emitted by it.
From the standpoint of the ether theory, it is self-evident that it makes no
difference whether or not the source of light moves; light considered as
mechanical vibration in the ether is propagated with a constant velocity with
respect to the ether. [***] Dropping the ether theory of light, Einstein had to
reformulate this law into a statement about observable facts. There is one
system of reference, F (the fundamental system), with respect to which light is
propagated with a specific speed, c. No matter with what velocity the light
source moves with respect to the fundamental system (F), the light emitted is
propagated with the same specific velocity (c) relative to F. This statement is
usually called the 'principal [sic] of the of the constancy of the speed of
light.'"55
Calling the "æther" the "fundamental system" or the "resting system" is a
positivistic distinction in words, without a difference. One can dispute the
properties of the æther, or choose to ignore them, but it is still the æther
which is under discussion. Since the principle of relativity is a deduction, it
cannot rationally be asserted as a "postulate". Believing (sometime deceiving)
that "less is more", does not make "less" original.
Anton Reiser also referred to the principle of relativity as being a
"conclusion", and not a postulate,
"Conclusions, of the most practical importance to further research, which the
theory of relativity has yielded, are [***] (3) Natural laws do not change
their form in the transition from one coördinate system to another similarly in
movement."56
It is rare indeed, that a "relativist" actually quotes the Einsteins' express
statement of the principle of relativity, or the express light "postulate". Why
is that? Were the Einsteins so inarticulate, or are their assertions so
obviously Newtonian absolutism?
The modern reader may be deluded and believe that since the modern view holds
that uniform motion is purely relative, with space-time being an absolute,
without a privileged frame of reference, that this is what the 1905 paper
expressed, but it clearly is not the case. The context was Newton's Fifth
Corollary, and the motion expressed is not purely relative. Uniform motion in
the 1905 paper is absolute, unaccelerated motion relative to resting space.
J. H. Jeans wrote in 1907,
"Newton believed it to be possible to imagine a frame of reference actually
fixed in space, and intended all motion to be measured relatively to this
frame. Thus Newton's laws of motion apply to motion referred to axes fixed in
space".57
Newton's Fifth Corollary extends this principle to render equivalent the laws
of motion of systems of reference, measurements made by rigid material bodies,
in uniform motion through absolute space. This concept of the principle of
relativity was common knowledge long before the Twentieth Century, and was
known to Copernicus, Galileo and was expressed rigorously by Huygens.
The principle of relativity does not state, or imply, that light speed is an
invariant, rather it contradicts said claim. The laws of electrodynamics, just
as the laws of mechanics, would still be the same in all inertial systems, if
light speed were not an invariant. One would simply apply a Euclidean addition
of velocities instead of Poincaré's, which would not represent the detection of
absolute space, other than if the detection of the frame of light propagation
were artificially defined as the detection of absolute space, which definition
compels the acceptance of absolute space and the light medium, the æther.
In fact, taking light speed as a definitional invariant renders the laws of
electrodynamics dissimilar, for we are compelled to pretend that an anisotropic
clock is an isotropic clock, and to pretend that this anisotropic clock, light,
defines simultaneity as though it were an isotropic clock, and there is nothing
more dissimilar between relatively moving frames than relative simultaneity,
for it creates different states of being and becoming, different universes,
which are in no sense identities. Metaphysically pretending that there is a
mathematical substratum, a quadri-dimensional manifold absolute world uniting
these distinct universes, denies becoming--denies motion, and rests upon
arbitrary human rules and Gestalt linkages. The absolute world of space-time of
nothing-moving is a religious belief, and not a scientific assertion. Anton
Reiser put it thusly, essentially reiterating the words of Joseph Larmor from
the year 1900,
"The universe becomes a four-dimensional continuum in the time-space sense of
Minkowski. Physical occurrences are now represented by three spatial
coördinates as well as by one time coördinate, or in other words, there is no
Becoming, only Being."58
One is left to wonder how the "universe BECOMES a four-dimensional continuum",
if there is no "BECOMING". "Being and becoming" are states of awareness. If we
remove our anthropomorphic view of Nature, we are left without "being or
becoming", not one as opposed to the other.
Albert, after the fashion of Poincaré, later stated that the principle of
relativity also excluded the detection of absolute space by means of the
addition of velocities with respect to light propagation--that Maxwell's
equations hold in a moving system with equal validity to the resting system.
Why, in the modern theory, does light speed form the basis for the detection of
absolute space, if light speed is not an absolute velocity?
Boscovich, who called the principle of relativity, the "principle of
invariance"59 (much like Minkowski, who would, much later, call the principle
of relativity the "postulate of the absolute world"), stated that moving bodies
contract relative to their resting geometric forms. Henry Augustus Rowlands
clearly stated the principle of relativity, with its implication of Lorentz
invariance, in 1899, in the address herein reprinted. J. D. Everett60 declared
that space was a uniform translation, and not absolute, as early as 1883, soon
after the Michelson experiment's negative result.
The Einsteins lagged behind in their thinking, maintaining Lorentzian dogma
long after the innovations of Ludwig Lange and his "inertial system" of 1885.
It was Poincaré who led the way, Jakob Laub and Minkowski, then, forever did
away with absolute space in the special theory of relativity, aping Poincaré,
and framing Albert and Mileva works in Poincaré's image--except in Albert's
mind. Gehrcke, in a critique of the lack of originality in Minkowski's
assertions, brought the "Einsteinian" Relativist's attention to the fact that
it was Ludwig Lange, in 1885, who was the innovator of the concept of the
"inertial system" as the uniform translation of space-time, without a
privileged frame, and not Minkowski, nor Albert Einstein. Only after this
critique do we find the term "inertial system" appearing in the "Einsteinian"
relativistic literature. The real relativists were in what one might refer to
as the "Mach School of Relativism", and they were working on a general theory
to account for gravitation, rotations and all accelerations long before the
"Einsteinian Absolutists" caught on via their critics.
Minkowski provides us with evidence of the contemporary historical context of
the 1905 paper, as it was intended, and as it was understood by one of the
premier mathematician-physicists of the day. Systems in uniform motion through
absolute space were in that era (ca. 1905) understood as transformations of the
fundamental equations of absolute space. The Einsteins' paper avers that
reference frames, expressly, rigid material bodies, are the means of
measurement for observers, and the paper maintains the standard, Newtonian view
of absolute space, with the only distinction being that moving, rigid bodies
are not of invariant length, the hypothesized result being that moving, in the
absolute sense, rigid bodies contract, and moving, in the absolute sense,
clocks slow in their rate of change, and further that, if one pretends that the
anisotropic clock of light is isotropic, then simultaneity is relative, which
accounts for the contraction and dilatation, or is it vice versa? There is no
telling, for it is a Petitio Principii theory!
The Einsteins' formulation is in no way different from Lorentz' formulation of
moving systems of reference, as opposed to axes fixed in space, except for the
single statement that a resting æther is superfluous to the formulation, which
assertion Lucretius, Galileo, Newton, Mill, Clifford, Ostwald, Blavatsky,
Larmor, Drude, Cohn, Bucherer, Poincaré (etc., etc., etc.), had long since
made.
However, the 1905 paper has since been misinterpreted to confuse the variable
means of measurement of absolute space with the subsequently proposed
relativity of space itself, and this is done in order to award priority to
Albert Einstein, which he does not deserve. The general tone of the Lorentzian
theoretical physicists' viewpoint ca. 1900 was that space and time are relative
when measured, but that Maxwell's equations relate to a medium at rest. Though
the 1905 paper deals with the kinematics of relative motion, and measurements
made with moving bodies, moving in the absolute sense, it does not propose the
relativity of space, but the artificial, definitional relativity of
simultaneity. Furthermore, though the Einsteins' are often interpreted as
employing the "first postulate" as if it stated that "the measured velocity of
light is the same in all coordinate systems in uniform motion", it makes no
such statement. The "first postulate" statement does not express this
sentiment, and if it did, the founding hypothesis would beg the question of the
conclusion of the theory, and void its scientific value. The first postulate
states that the laws in systems in uniform motion are the same, and, as such,
absolute space holds no talismanic properties with regard to human laws of
electrodynamics. The 1905 paper's formulation of the conclusions to be drawn
from the principle of relativity simply assert, given the definition of the
absolute velocity of light in the second postulate,
"that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties
of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics",
not that absolute space does not exist, nor that absolute rest is undetectable,
per se. Since this principle of relativity does not conflict with Newton's
light theory, why should it conflict with Lorentz'? Albert maintained
throughout that Lorentz' theory was in conflict with the principle of
relativity. Albert considered the velocity of light absolute.
The 1905 paper grossly blunders by not addressing accelerations and rotations
with respect to the principle of relativity, and in this sense, Poincaré, who
did not ignore these issues, was the more brilliant mind and studied scientist.
After Poincaré published his thoughts in this area, the subject subsequently
arose in Albert's writings, as well.
Since space and time are continuous, the human means of mapping relations
through material apparatus cannot and does not render space nor time relative,
rather, it merely alters our conceptualization of velocities. Newton was well
aware of this fact, and believed it justified his absolutism.
All of Albert's papers up until the general theory in 1915, hold to the premise
of absolutely resting space, in which Maxwell's dynamic equations are
fundamental. Laub came close to shattering this conception in 1907, but failed
to take the crucial step toward denying absolute space, he just reiterated more
clearly that absolute space evinced no unique properties, but clearly Laub
understood the basic premise of the "inertial system". It was Ludwig Lange,
then later Poincaré, and following his lead, Minkowski, who adopted the
assumption that space is a uniform translation, but never with a privileged
frame of reference, rather possessing absolute directions and absolute,
forceless motions. Albert rejected Minkowski's views, until many pointed out to
him that they were essential to a formulation of a general theory of the
relativity of accelerated motion.
Many point to irrational flaws, the so-called "paradoxes", regarding variables
in the 1905 paper, which are, in fact, contradictions and mutual exclusions.
There are, however, numerous other irrational flaws in the paper, many of which
relate to the Einsteins' having presumed the conclusion of the theory in its
premises.
The "first postulate" states that c +/- v must be accounted for in the
processing of information, the generation of conceptual "velocity", for c is
the velocity of light in absolute space, and v is the uniform motion of bodies
through space. The 1905 paper contends that c +/- v is an observational fact.
The Newtonian equations for rectilinear uniform motions of translation cannot
exist without absolute motion, for two systems in uniform motion with respect
to each other are not axiomatically inertial--in fact, they never are inertial.
Newton's laws require an absolute space, a fantasy, as the substratum for
defining rectilinear uniform motion, rest and force, lest the definitions of
the terms become circular and meaningless. Newton's first law is a definition
of force, rendered as a consequence of the assumption of absolute rest and
absolute motion. Conducting empirical tests for inertial motion does not
obviate the fact that inertial motion is a circularly defined concept, rather
the necessity for such tests confirms it.
It must be noted that the equations of Newtonian mechanics take the same form
in systems in rectilinear uniform motion relative to absolute space, as they do
in absolute space itself. However, there is no such rectilinear uniform motion,
without absolute space as a substratum, most especially when the æther is
denied. A system in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics are valid can
only axiomatically be assumed to be a system at absolute rest, for a moving
system can only be known to be inertial through experiment, and cannot, a
prior, be assumed to be inertial, as can an absolutely resting system. In the
1905 paper, the moving system required an explicit definition. It was a
"resting system" put into uniform motion relative to empty space. It could not
simply be a "moving system", per se, for such a system would not axiomatically
"hold" to Newton's equations of inertia, though a "resting system" is of its
nature an inertial system, and requires no further explication.
The necessary distinction between types of conceptualized motion is clear in
the otherwise artificial distinction drawn between rotations and rest. Why
would centrifugal forces appear in a rotation, if there were no absolute space,
given that the Einsteins, like Newton, define inertia as a force of inert space
and inert matter? Newtonian mechanics are the mechanics of absolute space. The
only system in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics are axiomatically
valid, without taking account of forces (accelerations), is in a system resting
in absolute space, by Newton's express definitions. Pure relativity theory
would, a priori, state that there is no basis for inertia in space, but only in
relation, as Mach contended. However, experiment would then contradict the
entire premise of the inertial frame, for no rectilinear uniform motion has yet
been observed, and those motions taken to be ideally inertial by approximation,
do not reveal Euclidean spaces which obey Newton's laws of inertia.
The traditional approach was to assume that the so-called "fixed stars" provide
an approximate reference for the "resting system", and it was assumed that a
body at rest in empty space would maintain its position with respect to these
"fixed stars", unless acted upon by a force, and a body so set into motion by a
force would maintain rectilinear uniform motion of translation, unless acted
upon by another, or a constant, force, which is, of course, a circular, and
therefore, meaningless definition of inertia.
It is nonsensical to view inertial motion as the absence of force. If no force
were acting on a resting body, and no force were acting on a uniformly moving
body, the two would be in mutual rest. Since inertia is a sum of "forces", not
the absence of force, it is absurd to speak of uniform motions with respect to
the sum of forces acting on a given body without referring to a medium. Mach's
principle is just more words for Newton's empty principle of inertia, unless
the "fields of force" are physical states of a medium, and the body itself is
the relation of these fields in the medium, the universe.
The Einsteins' 1905 paper sets out to define time, unabashedly aping Poincaré.
Poincaré, however, made a fundamental rational error not made by Ludwig Lange.
Poincaré asserted that the one-way measurement of light speed required a means
of measuring time, which we do not possess, and, therefore, time must be
defined by the round trip motion of a light clock, which is definitionally
presumed to be isotropic. Lange, and after him, MacGregor, knew better. Since
Poincaré compelled that his relativity theory occur in an inertial system, time
was already defined as the uniform, inertial motion of any body, and any such
uniform motion is a perfect, though anisotropic, clock, whereby equal spaces
are traversed in equal times for a given frame of reference, by definition. The
inertial system, itself, is the uniform translation of motion of fundamental,
continuous space, or the æther, in which light itself is a uniform, rectilinear
translatory motion. Poincaré was in fact, despite his myths, restricted to
using light as a one way measure of time for moving systems, since light is a
uniform motion of translation, but was prohibited from employing it as though
it were an isotropic clock, and amazingly, after he provided the rational
argument why this is so, for one moves toward light in one direction, and away,
the other, he then turned logic on its head and demanded that simultaneity be
considered relative, instead of following his admission that light is an
anisotropic clock to its rational conclusion. He did so by pretending that
light speed is invariant between inertial systems in relative motion to each
other, which was a religious belief, not a scientific fact. As Poincaré stated
in 1904,
"Imagine two observers who wish to adjust their watches by optical signals;
they exchange signals, but as they know that the transmission of light is not
instantaneous, they take care to cross them.
When the station B perceives the signal from the station A, its clock should
not mark the same hour as that of the station A at the moment of sending the
signal, but this hour augmented by a constant representing the duration of the
transmission. Suppose, for example, that the station A sends its signal when
its clock marks the hour o, and that the station B perceives it when its clock
marks the hour t. The clocks are adjusted if the slowness equal to t represents
the duration of the transmission, and to verify it, the station B sends in its
turn a signal when its clock marks o; then the station A should perceive it
when its clock marks t. The timepieces are then adjusted. And in fact, they
mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but on one condition, which is
that the two stations are fixed. In the contrary case the duration of the
transmission will not be the same in the two senses, since the station A, for
example, moves forward to meet the optical perturbation emanating from B, while
the station B flies away before the perturbation emanating from A. The watches
adjusted in that manner do not mark, therefore, the true time, they mark what
one may call the local time, so that one of them goes slow on the other. It
matters little since we have no means of perceiving it. All the phenomena which
happen at A, for example, will be late, but all will be equally so, and the
observer who ascertains them will not perceive it since his watch is slow; so
as the principle of relativity would have it, he will have no means of knowing
whether he is at rest or in absolute motion."
The Einsteins' repeated these words in their 1905 paper, Part I, § 1, without
mentioning Poincaré's name--Albert never acknowledged that this method was
Poincaré's, and not his.
Since, as has been shown, the two postulates yield no theory, are redundant to
each other, or mutually exclusive, and were unoriginal, from whence comes the
Lorentz Transformation in the Einsteins' 1905 paper? The Lorentz Trasformation
arises in the 1905 paper from Poincaré's fallacy of light isotropy as a clock,
which presupposes length contraction and time dilatation as second order
effects, and relative simultaneity as a first order definitional absurdity.
In Part I, Section 3, of the Einsteins' 1905 paper, it states,
"To every system of values x, y, z, t, which completely determines the position
and time of an event in the resting system, appertains a system of values [xi],
[eta], [zeta], [tau] determining that event relatively to the system k, and
finding the system of equations connecting these magnitudes is the problem
which must now be solved.
It is clear to begin with, that the equations must be linear, due to the
properties of homogeneity, which we attribute to space and time.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
"At that time I firmly believed that the electrodynamic equations of Maxwell
and Lorentz were correct. Furthermore, the assumption that these equations
should hold in the reference frame of the moving body leads to the concept of
the invariance of the velocity of light, which, however, contradicts the
addition rule of velocities used in mechanics. Why do these concepts contradict
each other? I realized that this difficulty was really hard to resolve. I spent
almost a year in vain trying to modify the idea of Lorentz in the hope of
resolving this problem."47
Said "year in vain" was the year from 1904 to 1905, and the missing link
required to "modify the ['relativistic' addition rule of velocities implicit in
the Lorentz transformation group]" was effectively supplied by Poincaré a few
weeks before Mileva and Albert submitted their 1905 paper.
The Einsteins, in 1905, did not assert a theory which incorporated the inertial
system concept, but relied upon Newtonian laws of absolute motion. The
Einsteins' principle of relativity was Newton's Fifth Corollary, not the
Copernicus-Galileo-Huygens-Everett-Lange-Poincaré negative assertion that
absolute motion is undetectable.
The so-called "two postulates" in question are stated as follows in the 1905
paper:
"1 (a). Examples of a similar kind, as well as the failed attempts to find a
motion of the earth relative to the "light medium", lead to the supposition,
that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties
of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, on the
contrary, for all systems of coordinates, for which the equations of mechanics
are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are also valid, as has
already been proven for the magnitudes of the first order.
1 (b). The laws according to which the states of physical systems change do not
depend upon to which of two systems of coordinates, in uniform translatory
motion relative to each other, this change of state is referred.
2 (a). [L]ight in empty space always propagates with a determinate velocity c
irrespective of the state of motion of the emitting body.
2 (b). Every ray of light moves in the "resting" system of coordinates with the
determinate velocity c, irrespective of whether this ray of light is emitted
from a resting or moving body. Such that
velocity = (path of light) / (interval of time) ,
where "interval of time" is to be construed in the sense of the definition of §
1."
Note that the second postulate, in contradistinction to Goldberg's "b", does
not state that the velocity of light in space is independent of the observer's
motion, for the second postulate is a definition of the absolute velocity of
light in absolute space, and there can be no "observer's motion", for the
velocity is absolute and not relational. However, this absolute light law also
expresses the relation of light to an absolutely resting body.
What do these somewhat obscure and supposedly inconsistent "postulates" mean?
The Einsteins semantically define Maxwell's dynamic equations for light in its
medium as a fundamental "law" of Nature. They also irrationally define as a
"postulate" the "corollary" that laws are the same in all systems in uniform
motion. Since they believe that they have postulated that "laws" are the same
in all systems in uniform motion, and further since they have semantically
defined Maxwell's dynamic equations for the medium as a "law", the Einsteins
simplistically assert that Maxwell's equations are invariant in systems in
uniform motion, for the "law" of Maxwell's dynamic equations must be the same
"law" in all systems of uniform motion. However, the Einsteins have committed
the sin of the fallacy of confusion. The linguistic definitions of "it's so,
because I say it's so" do not work in physical theory in the manner the
Einsteins tried to force, for they are still bound by the rules of logic to
maintain internal consistency.
By these same two postulates, it is a "law" that bodies in the resting system,
rest, and, therefore, the same bodies which rest in the resting system must
also rest in the moving system, by definition, and the semantic argument of
definitions, therefore, fails, as it is transparently absurd, directly
contradicting itself, for that which rests is not moving.
The "law" of the second postulate states that light has a universally constant
velocity of celeritas in the resting system, and this "law" is built of many
elements. Velocity must be velocity relative to some thing. In the case of the
resting system, this thing must be at rest relative to the resting system, for,
otherwise, the velocity of light would be added to the velocity of the thing.
The "law" of the constancy of the absolute velocity of light in the resting
system may also represent both light and a given, resting object. The "law"
embraces the relation of light to this given, resting object. The "law" compels
that the velocity of light relative to this object be constant. Therefore,
since this "law" must be the same in all systems in uniform motion, the
relative velocity of light to this given object must be the same in all systems
in uniform motion, and the Lorentz Transformation, which defeats this axiomatic
fact, is a contradiction of the "law", and the two postulate myth is summarily
defeated due to its internal inconsistencies.
It is a "law" of classical mechanics, and no less so of the special theory of
relativity, that a body at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by a force.
Does the principle of relativity compel, therefore, that a body at rest in
resting space, a body subjected to no force, also be at rest in the moving
system? The "laws" of the moving system are, after all, the same as those of
the resting system. Since we are not entitled to infer from the principle of
relativity that a body which rests in the resting system must also rest in the
moving system, we are not entitled to infer from the principle of relativity
that the same beam of light which propagates in the resting system at celeritas
also propagates at celeritas in the moving system, and there truly is no
contradiction, or even a manifest correlation, between the two "postulates".
If we change the second postulate to state that the same beam of light
propagates at celeritas in all inertial systems, and add this as a "law" to
Newton's laws of motion, then the so-called "postulate" of the principle of
relativity is no postulate at all, but is the corollary it is in Newton's
Principia, the Fifth Corollary to Newton's laws of motion, for it is a
consequence and not a fundamental assumption.
The Einsteins employed the fallacy of Petitio Principii, artificially setting
c' = c and adding a proportionality factor between frames, in order to tacitly
presume the required additional hypotheses of length contraction, time
dilatation and relative simultaneity needed to formulate the theory, for the
Lorentz Transformation cannot be derived solely from the two postulates, as
shown above, which is why the modern view simply states the conclusion of the
theory as its postulates, viz. Goldberg's analysis, in which the postulates are
redundant, tacitly presume that light speed is absolute, and are, Petitio
Principii, the conclusion, as well as, the premise of the theory. The Lorentz
Transformation is a proposed cause of the observed conclusion that light speed
is invariant. The theory seeks to explain light speed invariance through the
theoretical reciprocity of the Lorentz Transformation, but the modern view
seemingly would have us believe that the goal of the theory is to explain the
theoretical reciprocity of the Lorentz Transformation, through light speed
invariance, thereby turning the theory, and logic itself, on its head. It is
light speed invariance which was supposedly observed, not the Lorentz
Transformation. Many theories have accounted for the supposedly observed light
speed invariance. The Lorentz Transformation is but one. The pseudo-relativists
are only pretending, through the exploitations of puns, that the Lorentz
Transformation is a logical consequence of observables, when it is not. It is
instead tacitly assumed by the Einsteins, and openly theorized by Lorentz, to
account for supposed observables.
Clement V. Durell rationalized the two postulates as follows:
"(i) It is impossible to detect uniform motion through the ether.
(ii) In all forms of wave motion, the velocity of propagation of the wave is
independent of the velocity of the source."48
His remarks are telling, and I will return to the meaning they convey, later.
The reader should note that the Einsteins' 1905 paper discounts the æther as
"superfluous", just as Clifford, Lange, Cohn and Poincaré (and effectively,
quasi-positivistically, Larmor and Drude) had before it, not because the paper
denies absolute space, as common myth now holds, but because Albert may have
considered light to be other than an æthereal phenomenon. Absolute space is
retained in the 1905 paper, but absolute space allegedly has no properties
which are unique--Nature conspires to conceal it from us, should it be sought
through optical means in unaccelerated relative motions (given the unproven
assumption of Maxwell's dynamic equations for the medium of "space"). As Albert
averred in 1907,
"The hypothesis of H. A. Lorentz and G. F. FitzGerald appears then as a
necessary consequence of the theory. Only the idea of a luminiferous ether as
the carrier of electric and magnetic forces does not fit in with the theory
presented here; for electromagnetic fields do not appear here as states of some
kind of matter, but rather as independently existing objects, on a par with
matter, and sharing with the latter the characteristic of inertia."49
The "necessary consequence" is forced by trying to drive a square peg into a
round hole and cram the two postulates into agreement, by wrongfully assuming
the non-identity of two distinct systems as an express identity of equals,
instead of creating a new theory of metric geometry to formally explain the
supposed empirical congruence of the otherwise incongruent "two postulates".
The postulates do not prima facie agree, and the addition of constants and
proportionality factors to the variables of "dimension" in the "derivation" of
the Lorentz Transformation is the tacit hypothesizing of length contraction,
time dilatation and relative simultaneity, and these do not follow as a
"necessary consequence", but represent ad hoc hypotheses, just as in Lorentz.
The "premise" of constant celeritas is the conclusion of the tacit hypotheses
of length contraction, time dilatation and relative simultaneity, whereby the
derived unit of velocity, celeritas, is turned on its head, and is employed as
the basis for deriving the units of length and time, under the absurd
assumption that c +/- v represents an isotropic clock between systems. The
assumption is that the supposedly known observational fact is that c' = c, and
we need to arrive at that conclusion through theorization, we must not theorize
through that conclusion, taking it as a premise, lest the result be a foregone
conclusion--a fallacy.
In 1907, Albert effectively fused the two postulates into a single light
hypothesis,
"the "principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" [***] for a system
of coordinates in a definite state of motion".
Though Albert still spoke of the "principle of relativity" in the 1907 paper,
after redefining the light postulate, the principle of relativity became
superfluous and redundant with respect to the Lorentz Transformation, and is a
consequence of it, not the premise behind it. This new 1907 light hypothesis is
by no means an axiomatic postulate; as Albert stated,
"That the supposition made here, which we want to call the "principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light", is actually met in Nature, is by no means
self-evident, nevertheless, it is--at least for a system of coordinates in a
definite state of motion--rendered probable through its verification, which
Lorentz' theory based upon an absolutely resting æther has ascertained through
experiment."
"Daß die hier gemachte Annahme, welche wir ,,Prinzip von der Konstanz der
Lichtgeschwindigkeit" nennen wollen, in der Natur wirklich erfüllt sei, ist
keineswegs selbstverständlich, doch wird dies -- wenigstens für ein
Koordinatensystem von bestimmtem Bewegungszustande -- wahrscheinlich gemacht
durch die Bestätigungen, welche die, auf die Voraussetzung eines absolut
ruhenden Äthers gegründete Lorentzsche Theorie durch das Experiment erfahren
hat."50
Notice that in systems in a "definite state of motion", as opposed to those at
absolute rest, there is no axiomatic assumption of celeritas. Note well that
Albert considered Earth-fixed experiments to be conducted in a definite state
of motion, but motion relative to what, if not motion relative to the
privileged system? We see that the principle of relativity is rendered
redundant in 1907, as the above light hypothesis is expositive of the
Michelson-Morley experiment, but Albert uses that experiment for justification
of the principle of relativity,
"In reference to which, we now make the most elementary, and, by way of the
experiment of Michelson and Morley, reasonable assumption conceivable: The laws
of Nature do not depend upon the state of motion of the system of reference, at
least in the case where the latter is free from acceleration."
"In bezug hierauf machen wir nun die denkbar einfachste und durch das
Experiment von Michelson und Morley nahe gelegte Annahme: Die Naturgesetze sind
unabhängig vom Bewegungszustande des Bezugssystems, wenigstens falls letzterer
ein beschleunigungsfreier ist."51
The "two postulates" became one light hypothesis in 1907, with the second
postulate, Maxwell's dynamic equations for absolute space, tacitly taken as an
axiom, and the first postulate, the principle of relativity, rendered
surplusage--a consequence of Lorentz geometry, and not a postulate, but a
corollary found through Petitio Principii. It is significant that Albert
dismisses the notion of the æther to distinguish his views from Lorentz', but
never dismisses the notion of absolute rest as the fundamental rest frame of
Maxwell's equations!
The Einsteins are playing a subtle and deceptive game. We would find relative
simultaneity absolutely intolerable if light were seen as the changing states
of a comprehensible æther, but find it less offensive to our sensibilities when
we pretend that light is a form of incomprehensible nothing, so-called "empty
space". If "empty space" is something other than nothing, then it is not
superfluous, it is the æther.
Note that Albert considered the Michelson-Morley experiment to be a test of
relative motion. One must ask, motion relative to what? It must be motion
relative to absolute space, for in the modern theory of special relativity, the
Michelson-Morley experiment tests nothing, can be explained on the basis of an
emissions theory or a dragged æther, without relative simultaneity, and
represents no relative motion, or acceleration of the axes of the apparatus in
the æther wind, whatsoever. Though the Michelson-Morley experiment is
supposedly evidence against a relative motion between the Earth and the æther,
it is by no means experimental evidence in support of the modern theory of
special relativity, where the only relative motion is the slow rotation of the
apparatus relative to the laboratory frame and the subtle motions of the Earth,
which should render no observable effects, pursuant to the theory. It bears
repeating, that the principle of relativity no more requires the invariance of
light speed, than it does the invariance of the speed of sound, unless light
speed is taken as an absolute velocity and the principle of relativity is taken
to mean that absolute velocities cannot be observed--which obviously presumes
absolutes.
We must state, together with Lorentz and Poincaré, that if we first hypothesize
length contraction and time dilatation, (so-called Lorentzian Geometry) then we
are able to conclude that c' = c to the second order, and the hypotheses of
length contraction and time dilatation are a viable explanation for the
supposedly empirically determined invariance of the measured velocity of light,
given the definitional first order transformation of
x' - ct' = x - ct,
which renders observational simultaneity relative, based solely on this
completely arbitrary, algebraic transformational definition. Otherwise, we
tacitly assume what is incompatible on its face, the two postulates, and the
former proposition is the exact path Albert followed after the appearance of
the 1905 paper, when Planck and others pointed out that the "theory of
relativity" was not Albert's theory, but Lorentz' theory. After Albert's rise
to fame in the early 1920's, he avoided the subject.
Of course, the 1905 paper itself primes the reader to accept the "two
postulate" non sequitur disguise for Lorentz' 1904 publication, and states,
"The length to be discovered in the case of procedure b), which we want to call
'the length of the (moving) rod in the resting system', we will determine on
the basis of our two principles and find that it differs from l.
The kinematics in general use tacitly takes for granted that the lengths
determined by both of the stated procedures are the exactly same, or, in other
words, that a moving rigid body in the epoch of time t is, in geometrical
respects, an exact substitute for the same body, when it rests in a fixed
position."
In other words, we are tacitly asked to hypothesize that moving bodies change
length, and then are asked to wait to see by which factor, if we forecast the
effect and assume the conclusion as a premise, which allows us to introduce
arbitrary, and unwarranted constants and proportionality factors to an
incompatible, definitional algebraic transformation.
The Einsteins knew Lorentz' formulation for length contraction before working
on their 1905 paper. Their claim regarding kinematics and length invariance was
not true, and they knew that it was not true. Why didn't they simply state the
truth, which they knew at the time, that, "although traditional Newtonian
kinematics employs a geometry in which the length of moving spaces are
invariant in reference systems in rectilinear uniform motion, FitzGerald,
Larmor, Lorentz have presented a new geometry in which moving "rigid" bodies
are not invariant, in order to account for the interpretation that the
measurement of light speed is invariant"? The Einsteins knew that this was the
case, and their formulation of the same theory turns logic on its head. They
drove a square peg into a round hole and put their names to what was not
theirs. Why did they misrepresent the facts, which facts were known to them, if
not to assume credit for that which was not theirs? Their actions were petty.
What is amazing is that their positivistic celebration of ignorance and
irrationality, perpetrated to "hide their sources", became enshrined. It
demonstrates the danger of hero worship and the irrational human game of follow
the leader--right off the face of a cliff.
Albert claimed priority over Lorentz in 1907 by stating that Position-Time,
"Ortzeit" was merely Time. Of course, countless persons of all recorded ages
denied absolute time, and there is no priority to be had in doing so in 1905!
The Einsteins' definition of time is no different from Lorentz', other than
semantically--it is the definitional first order transformation disguised as a
light clock, which pseudo-clock system is shown to be anisotropic, though it is
absurdly defined to be isotropic. Poincaré had denied absolute time before
Albert and had proposed the impossible to perform clock synchronization method
Albert aped, and Albert had read his work on relativity, but did not cite it in
the 1905 paper, or the 1907 paper, or the 1912 paper, or the 1916 paper. . . .
* * *
As explained above, the "principle of relativity" set forth in the "first
postulate" is a restatement of Newton's laws for rectilinear uniform motion of
translation relative to Newtonian absolute space, as stated in Newton's
infamous Fifth Corollary. Since the Einsteins' theory employs "uniform motions"
and "rest", the "principle of relativity" is simply a redundant statement of
Newtonian absolutism based on an absolute substratum--and Albert glorified this
fact. Absolutism does not exclude relations, but true relativism, not the
pseudo-relativism of the Einsteins, true relativism excludes absolutes.
It is important to realize that the Einsteins' statement of the principle of
relativity does not refer to bodies in a state of rest, but, rather, it is
exclusively and expressly a statement which refers to bodies in uniform motion,
and is never applied to the "resting system", as the laws of Maxwell are a
definitional and understood condition in resting space. The "principle of
relativity" is the relational aspect of the Einsteins' absolutism, just as it
was the relational aspect to Newton's absolutism--both are the relational
aspect of: absolute space, the laws of inertia, and the absolute nature of
Nature's laws. Mileva and Albert were employing the Newtonian conception of
uniform motion, though they never expressly state the motion be inertial, for
they had no need to do so, since rectilinear, uniform motion relative to
absolute space represents the circular definition of inertial motion. The
"second postulate", the light postulate was simply a statement that Maxwell's
dynamic equations for absolute space, the æther, are assumed to be valid.
The "first postulate" refers exclusively to "moving systems", or rigid material
bodies in absolute, uniform motion, hence the title of the work, "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper). The
terminology of "resting system" and "moving systems" was conventional, and was
the standard language of the day, understood by all physicists of the time,
even those who disagreed with it, to mean systems of coordinates in absolute
rest and absolute motion. Those who sought to distinguish space as relative, or
"rest", as rest relative to a moving system, were compelled to so specify, and
did. The Einsteins neither made, nor implied, any such distinction.
The "second postulate" refers only to the "resting system", or rigid material
bodies at absolute rest, and is the system in which the fundamental
Maxwell-Hertz-Lorentz equations for absolute rest have their foundational
meaning. The second postulate was meant to say that Maxwell's dynamic equations
for absolute space are valid, and that is all it was meant to say. The second
postulate expresses the sentiments of Max Abraham, who wrote in 1904,
"The electromagnetic theory addresses the absolute motion of light, which light
issues forth in every direction with the same velocity (c)"
"Die elektromagnetische Theorie spricht von einer absoluten Bewegung des
Lichtes, die nach jeder Richtung hin mit derselben Geschwindigkeit (c)
erfolgt"52
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
paper. Contrary to the circular argument, the principle of relativity, taken as
a "postulate", does not state that there is no addition of velocities for
light, but rather compels an addition of velocity for light, taken as a
"postulate", which "postulate" is asserted prior to the assumption (note that I
did not state "derivation") of Lorentzian geometry. Therefore, Goldberg's
statement "c" of the first postulate cannot be construed to represent
experiments meant to detect the frame of the medium for light propagation,
unless one assumes that light has an absolute velocity, for otherwise there
would be no correlation between light's medium and absolute rest, and,
therefore, pursuant to Goldberg's theorization, if one were to detect the
privileged frame of that velocity, light's medium, one would find absolute
space, which is a non sequitur, since the æther is expressly denied. Light can
only have an "absolute velocity", independent of the motion of the source, if
that velocity is the velocity of a wave in a medium.
The Einsteins wrote,
"Examples of a similar kind, as well as the failed attempts to find a motion of
the earth relative to the "light medium", lead to the supposition, that the
concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties of the
phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, on the contrary,
for all systems of coordinates, for which the equations of mechanics are valid,
the same electrodynamic and optical laws are also valid, as has already been
proven for the magnitudes of the first order."
The Einsteins' statement is false. Many first order effects were thought to
have detected relative motion of the Earth and the æther. Motion of the Earth
with respect to the æther was believed to have been detected by the phenomena
of aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau Effect. Not only that, but this alleged
relative motion supposedly served as a means for determining the velocity of
light based upon the known motion of the Earth, and hence revealed the supposed
frame of the medium--in direct contradiction to the known motion of the Solar
System. If one believes that aberration does not reveal the frame of the
medium, then one cannot use the phenomenon of aberration to discount the
possibility of a mobile æther. Of course, the "relativists" must tweek the
formulation of aberration in order to hide the æther frame, but even the new
formulation admits of relative motion of the medium and the earth, disguised as
the relative motion of source, projectile and receiver. The problems associated
with the theory of aberration are many, and beyond the scope of the present
discussion. The same is true of the Doppler-Fizeau Effect, which likewise
discloses the medium, as Herbert Dingle has explained, and which requires
tremendous leaps of fantasy to be conceived of as other than an æthereal
phenomenon.
The Einsteins' assertion that classical mechanics possesses no properties
corresponding to absolute rest is false and is based on Newton's fallacy that a
body at rest and a body in uniform motion are subjected to no forces, when the
rational conclusion is that bodies in relative uniform motion are subjected to
different forces from a body "at rest", forces here being understood as the
interplay of "body" and "medium" as the perpetual change of the universe, and
it being further understood that "relative uniform motions" are definitional
and not real.
Since every body is different from every other body, lest two bodies be the
same body with two different names, and, further, since the status of the
medium surrounding each body is different, not only in its pressures, but due
to its status as surrounding a different body, the "forces" are axiomatically
different for each body in the universe, and relative rest is a fallacy.
The Einsteins, who were supposedly relativists, should have realized that
Newtonian mechanics is a fallacy, and that, not only is there no property of
absolute, or relative, rest, there is no property of uniform motion, as motion
requires at least two objects and each body has a field which imparts force,
and, therefore, there can be no forceless inertial relative motion between two
abstractly isolated bodies, let alone in the cluttered universe we observe.
That Newton had one definition of absolute rest, does not mean that any other
definition of rest is ipso facto "relative". The modern theory of special
relativity adopted Ludwig Lange's absolute rest of the "inertial system", which
is different from Newton's absolute rest, but is yet absolute. Though Newton
defined absolute rest as a specific frame and the Einsteins accepted that
notion with their "resting system", Ludwig Lange changed Newton's definition of
absolute rest to the case of perpetual forcelessness, whereby, a body subjected
to no force, rests, and two bodies which move relative to each other, may each
be at absolute rest, if subjected to no forces.
Lange simply pursued Newton's Fifth Corollary to its logical conclusion, that
conclusion being that what is called and abstracted as "absolute rest" and what
is called and abstracted as "uniform, rectilinear motion of translation" are
just two names for the same abstract absolute, the "resting" state of existence
of a body, which body is not subjected to any "force". "Absolute rest", for
Lange, is not a privileged reference frame, as it is for Newton and the
Einsteins, but is a given body's state when subjected to no forces. Hence, it
is incorrect to assert that classical mechanics holds no properties
corresponding to absolute rest, for inertia is the property of absolute rest,
which absolute rest is one thing, forceless being, given two names in classical
mechanics, the names of "rest" and "uniform rectilinear motion of translation".
However, this one thing, inertial forcelessness, must be interpolated
mathematically in abstraction, for it never has been observed to occur in
Nature--cannot rationally occur in the known universe, and is therefore a human
delusion, which contradicts its premises, and is not an observable--both in the
myths of classical mechanics and in the myths of the special theory of
relativity. This one thing, inertial forcelessness, bears many properties in
both classical mechanics and in the modern special theory of relativity, such
as the alleged fact that bodies in inertial relative motion overcome equal
distances in equal times, and move rectilinearly. Light is just one such
uniform motion of translation, but it is not isotropic. Light is not a valid
two-way clock between systems in relative motion.
As far as the Einsteins were concerned, in 1905, bodies resting in Newton's
privileged, resting frame have an absolute geometric form, which is also
perceived by co-moving observers should the bodies and observers be put into
forceless motion and contract along their axis of motion, and measure distances
according to a self-contradictory and impossible to perform light signaling
process. The Einsteins' parroted Lorentz' view and Poincaré's inane method, in
1905, and did not realize that there is no distinction between resting
forcelessness and moving forcelessness, though Poincaré clearly had. The
Einsteins, then, absurdly (along with crowd), associated abstract and
self-contradictory resting forcelessness with the medium of light propagation
and inanely confused the medium of light propagation with abstract absolute
rest.
It was a twin Cerberus of non sequiturs: resting forcelessness = light medium =
absolute space; and in contradistinction: moving forcelessness = uniform and
isotropic motion of light = the Lorentz Transformation adjusted uniform
translation of absolute space.
Paradoxically, the maintenance of the absolute laws of Nature from the
privileged frame of reference to uniformly moving frames of reference is itself
a property corresponding to the idea of absolute rest, in the Einsteins' myths,
though they apparently lacked the insight to realize it, or perhaps were simply
aping the irrational assertions of others. Since the principle of relativity,
in the 1905 paper, is limited to Lange's surreal absolute rest, the "Minkowski"
uniform translation of space, in the modern view, and to "uniform motion" as
opposed to "rest" in the 1905 paper itself, there is no implication that
absolute rest is, or is not, undetectable through acceleration, through
"force", because "forcelessness" becomes the axiomatic and circular definition
of the uniform translation of "space" and "time" via Galileo's mythical laws of
uniform motion. Light is simply alleged to be a Galilean uniform, translatory
motion in all inertial frames--an inertial frame is that in which light is a
uniform motion--which is fundamentally equivalent to stating that light does
not move, but rather everything moves about light at "light speed"--"everything
speed", even though this "motion" requires that everything moves in opposing
directions at this "everything speed" for light can anti-propagate the universe
about it in all directions. When we eventually return to the reality that light
is a wave disturbance in a medium, we will laugh at the absurdity of the
assertion that light does not move, for light is progressive changes of state
in a medium and not an unchanging body which can be said to "rest". No one who
observes that different portions of water compose a propagating water wave,
would contend that the wave "rests", or that the water passes through the wave,
the different portions of water attaining the wave's nature as a distortion of
"space-time", whilst the water passes through the wave, and yet this is what is
fundamentally asserted in the special theory of relativity (Clifford's light),
when the numerological veil is lifted. Ultimately, the disturbance and the
medium are one, and the apparent mystically reciprocal nature of their being,
stated as relational, is the delusion of an artificial, linguistic distinction.
The Einsteins again violate their requirement that absolute rest evince no
characteristic properties, with their example of the absolute motion of clocks
at the equator and poles of the Earth, which, according to the Einsteins,
should render different readings due to the different absolute motion of each,
if their theory is viable.
The Einsteins also assigned the ultimate property of absolute rest to light, in
that they equate the detection of the frame of the medium of light propagation
to the detection of absolute space, itself! The Einsteins' absolutist fallacy
is as bogus as Newton's absurd assertion that forces cause absolute changes in
velocity and the force of inertia (forcelessness) is the absence of forces, or,
per Newton's absurdities, forcelessness = force.
Since the second postulate requires that light speed be isotropic in the
resting system, one of the laws of the resting system is that the velocity of
light is added to the velocity of moving bodies, in a Galilean Transformation,
and, therefore, since light is not an isotropic clock relative to moving
bodies, light speed cannot be isotropic in a moving system, other than by
redefining "isotropic" to be a synonym for "anisiotropic", in an irrational,
semantical disguise for Lorentz geometry.
The first postulate does not state that light speed is isotropic in the moving
system, any more than Newton's Fifth Corollary states that the speed of sound
in air is isotropic for all systems in relative motion. In order to arrive at
Lorentz invariant light speed, the first postulate must be changed to drop its
requirement that the laws of physics be the same in all systems in uniform
motion, and instead require that the speed of light be the same, and be
isotropic, in all systems in uniform motion, viz. Goldberg's "c" for the second
postulate, as the two "postulates" are mutually exclusive.
However, if the first postulate is redefined to state that the speed of light
is the same and is isotropic in all inertial systems; and, the second postulate
is redefined to state that the speed of light is the same and is isotropic in
all inertial systems; then, the two postulates are either redundant to each
other, or one is deducible from the other as a corollary, and is not a
postulate.
Since the "laws" of physics require that velocity is a relative concept, the
velocity of light in the resting system is the motion of light relative to some
body. The light "law" is one of relative motion between light and body and does
not live by light alone. For this law to be the same in all inertial systems,
simultaneity must be the same in all inertial systems, and the same light which
moves at celeritas relative to the same bodies, must do so in all inertial
systems, viz. the Galilean Transformation, or the "law" is in no wise the
"same", as it would no longer address identities, but rather delusions. "Same"
requires exact identities, which identities are absent in the special theory of
relativity.
Equating real light to conceptually relatively "resting" bodies of any system,
does not represent a physical law, but a conceptual law. It is an arbitrary and
artificial rule of language, not a law of Nature. There is only the relative
motion between a given body and a given light wave, not "rest" in any sense. If
the relative velocity between any given beam of light and any given body
changes between observers, then the "law" has been broken.
If we change the "law" to correlate light, not to a given body, but to an
equivalent conceptual state, a body in unforced motion, then the "two
postulates" are one assertion with two names, for the light postulate is then
not the law of one system, but is a law of all "equivalent" systems, and the
relativity "postulate", which compels the congruence of the law of one system
with all other "equivalent" systems, is already contained in the light law
itself, which is not the law of one system, but of all "equivalent" systems.
The principle of relativity is a red herring, for, as it is used in this
context, it can mean either of two things, and is therefore a meaningless pun
embracing all mutually exclusive possibilities: That the addition of velocities
is understood as Euclidean, whereby the laws of electrodynamics are the same
for all systems, just as the laws of sound are the same for all systems, and
therefore the speed of light, though it may be a universal constant in its
medium, is subject to the Euclidean laws of velocity addition; or: That the
laws of electrodynamics can remain the same in all inertial systems, even if
the speed of light is the same, and is isotropic, in all inertial systems. And
we see in the 1905 paper that the Einsteins play off of their puns (Poincaré's
puns) to confuse the reader with smoke and mirrors into believing that
anisotropic light speed is isotropic.
If the former definition is chosen, then the theory of special relativity is
obviated. If the latter alternative is chosen, then the first postulate is not
a postulate, but a conclusion, which is derived from the modern interpretation
of the second postulate, that the speed of light is the same and is isotropic
in all inertial systems, and which merely states that the classical principle
of relativity can be maintained even if the modern interpretation of Goldberg's
"c" of the second postulate is asserted. When, as in the 1905 paper, the pun is
exploited, the theory is a fallacy.
The so-called "principle of relativity" is not the principle of relativity
itself, but a conclusion that the principle of relativity is not violated by
Lorentzian geometry, and to assert this conclusion as though it were a
postulate is irrational, it is the unforgivable fallacy of Petitio Principii.
Notice that in the modern view, light speed is tacitly presumed to be absolute,
for otherwise, detecting its medium would in no wise equate to detecting
absolute rest. Note further that Newton, who agreed with Goldberg's "a" for the
first postulate, firmly held that many tests must detect absolute space, in
direct contradiction to Goldberg's "c" for the same "postulate", which is, in
fact, nothing but a corollary. Note still further that Goldberg's "c" for the
first "postulate" is relevant only to tests involving uniform motions, and does
not apply to tests involving accelerations. Therefore, Goldberg's "c" for the
first "postulate" is a mandate of absolutivity and not a principle of
relativity--that of the undetectable, though absolute frame of the absolute
velocity of light.
The confusion stems from an insecure need in the 1920's to award the great hero
"Einstein" credit for Lorentz' theory, as evinced in the mistranslation of the
Einsteins' 1905 paper into English,
"Es liege ein Koordinatensystem vor, in welchem die Newtonischen mechanischen
Gleichungen gelten. Wir nennen dies Koordinatensystem zur sprachlichen
Unterscheidung von später einzuführenden Koordinatensystemen und zur
Präzisierung der Vorstellung das 'ruhende System'."
which the standard English translation claims represents,
"Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian
mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to
distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be
introduced hereafter, we call it the 'stationary system'."42
Said translation is certainly incorrect and leads Einsteins' apologists to
assume that the "stationary system" and the "moving systems" used in the paper
are merely interchangeable generic labels, and that "stationary" does not mean
the present participle "resting", which it is in the original German, but is
merely a label such as "K", as in the "system K". The obvious fact seemingly
eludes many, that the Einsteins employed the generic labels "K" and "k", but
contradistinguished the state of "resting" from the state of "motion".
There is a large body of evidence which refutes their misunderstanding.
Albert's 1916 paper on the general theory of relativity makes abundantly clear
that the "stationary system" is a privileged system, and that "stationary"
carries with it its classical meaning of "absolutely resting". Herman Minkowski
and Isaac Newton also clarify that the "resting system" is different from the
"moving systems" in rectilinear, uniform motion of translation through space.
"Uniform motion" is definitely different from "the state of rest" in Newtonian
mechanics. Minkowski informs us that the standard, contemporary view ca. 1905
was that space was itself at rest, and that the equations of Newtonian
mechanics related to the resting system of space, and only by transformation
represented a distinct set of equations for uniform motions of translation,
"The equations of Newton's mechanics exhibit a two-fold invariance. Their form
remains unaltered, firstly, if we subject the underlying system of spatial
co-ordinates to any arbitrary change of position; secondly, if we change its
state of motion, namely, by imparting to it any uniform translatory motion;
furthermore, the zero point of time is given no part to play. We are accustomed
to look upon the axioms of geometry as finished with, when we feel ripe for the
axioms of mechanics, and for that reason the two invariances are probably
rarely mentioned in the same breath. Each of them by itself signifies, for the
differential equations of mechanics, a certain group of transformations. The
existence of the first group is looked upon as a fundamental characteristic of
space. The second group is preferably treated with disdain, so that we with
untroubled minds may overcome the difficulty of never being able to decide,
from physical phenomena, whether space, which is supposed to be stationary, may
not be after all in a state of uniform translation. Thus the two groups, side
by side, lead their lives entirely apart. Their utterly heterogeneous character
may have discouraged any attempt to compound them. But it is precisely when
they are compounded that the complete group, as a whole, gives us to think."43
"Die Gleichungen der Newtonschen Mechanik zeigen eine zweifache Invarianz.
Einmal bleibt ihre Form erhalten, wenn man das zugrunde gelegte räumliche
Koordinatensystem einer beliebigen Lagenveränderung unterwirft, zweitens, wenn
man es in seinem Bewegungszustande verändert, nämlich ihm irgendeine
gleichförmige Translation aufprägt; auch spielt der Nullpunkt der Zeit keine
Rolle. Man ist gewohnt, die Axiome der Geometrie als erledigt anzusehen, wenn
man sich reif für die Axiome der Mechanik fühlt, und deshalb werden jene zwei
Invarianzen wohl selten in einem Atemzeug genannt. Jede von Ihnen bedeutet eine
gewisse Gruppe von Transformationen in sich für die Differentialgleichungen der
Mechanik. Die Existenz der ersteren Gruppe sieht man als einen fundamentalen
Charakter des Raumes an. Die zweite Gruppe straft man am liebsten mit
Verachtung, um leichten Sinnes darüber hinwegzukommen, daß man von den
physikalischen Erscheinungen her niemals entscheiden kann, ob der als ruhend
vorausgesetzte Raum sich nicht am Ende in einer gleichförmigen Translation
befindet. So führen jene zwei Gruppen ein völlig getrenntes Dasein
nebeneinander. Ihr gänzlich heterogener Charakter mag davon abgeschreckt haben,
sie zu komponieren. Aber gerade die komponierte volle Gruppe als Ganzes gibt
uns zu denken auf."
Always, in the Einsteins' 1905 paper, the distinction is had between resting
systems and systems in uniform motion, and systems in uniform motion are the
product of a resting system, with motion imparted to it, and are definitely not
interchangeable with resting systems.
"Unterscheidung" as "contradistinction" represents Dynamics versus Phoronomy,
or, in the Einsteins' 1905 paper, resting versus moving, then, in Albert's 1907
and 1915 papers, geometric versus kinematic, all being equivalent a priori
statements of the same concept, absolute rest versus absolute motion.
The correct English translation of the paper reads:
"Consider a system of coordinates, in which the Newtonian mechanical equations
are valid. In order to put the contradistinction from the [moving] systems of
coordinates to be introduced later into words, and for the exact definition of
the conceptualization, we call this system of coordinates the 'resting
system'."
which is substantially different from the standard translation! The paper
clearly contradistinguishes "resting" and "moving", which are classical
opposites, and in the given grammatical context, contradistinct present
participles indicating action and rest. A contradistinction cannot be a
distinction without a difference. The paper makes clear that all of the
elements of the "resting system" are themselves in a "state of rest" in
"resting space" and are fixed. The paper makes clear that one need only map the
coordinates of a material point at rest in the three spatial coordinates of
fixed measuring sticks in "resting space", but the position of a moving
material point must be a function of time.
The "first postulate" refers exclusively to systems of reference in "uniform
motion" and the second postulate refers exclusively to systems of reference in
a "state of rest". Such is the language of Newtonian mechanics, as Newton and
Minkowski made clear, and the two states of rest and motion are different and
are not merely interchangeable "labels". They are expressly not Ludwig Lange's
"Inertialsysteme". If the standard translation were accurate, and interpreted
as it is commonly interpreted today, the two postulates would be redundant.
Most significantly, the paper defines the absolute velocity of light in space,
which is independent of the motion of the source, and note well that no mention
is made of the motion of the observer, as the second postulate defines an
absolute, and not a relation. The two-way average speed of light can only be
understood axiomatically to be isotropic in a resting medium of "space". The
1905 paper's infamous thought experiment is meaningless when applied to moving
systems, prior to the hypothesis of Lorentzian geometry--it is, rather, the
assumption that Maxwell's theory of light propagation in absolute space is
valid.
We have here a classic dispute over translation and interpretation, in many
ways strikingly similar to the Arian-Nicene debate over "one iota's
difference"--"homoousios" or "same substance" versus "homoiousios" or "similar
substance" to decide whether Jesus was similar to, or the same as, God. In
order to justify granting Albert Einstein priority, many feel compelled to
believe that the 1905 paper uses "resting" and "moving" interchangeably, but it
clearly does not. In every instance, a clear distinction is had, and one type
never reverts to the other. The distinctions are clearly Newtonian, and
therefore Lorentzian. Even if the Einsteins' had written the paper differently,
the priority would still belong to Poincaré. But in raising Albert to the
status of a god, it is necessary that the express contradistinction of
"resting" and "moving" found throughout the 1905 paper disappear, lest the
paper be seen as the almost verbatim repetition of Lorentz' 1904 paper that it
clearly is, and many are seemingly willing to overlook the fact that Poincaré
holds many years' priority over Albert on the non-Lorentzian issues.
So inexplicably close are Lorentz' work of 1904, and the Einsteins' paper of
1905, that in the 1913 republication of the Einsteins' 1905 paper together with
Lorentz' 1904 paper (and an excerpt from Lorentz 1895 book), in "Das
Relativitätsprinzip" that Arnold Sommerfeld felt compelled to claim regarding
the Einsteins' 1905 paper that,
"The previously published work of H. A. Lorentz was not yet known to the
author."
"Die im Vorhergehenden abgedruckte Arbeit von H. A. Lorentz war dem Verfasser
noch nicht bekannt."44
However, G. H. Keswani45 disputed this prima facie spurious claim. Keswani
avers that the Einsteins' 1905 paper's assertion of conformity between the
relativity-principle and Lorentzian electrodynamics could only have referred to
Lorentz' paper of 1904, and that Lorentz' earlier efforts were not in
conformity with the principle of relativity, according to Keswani, and Max Born
would seemingly have agreed,
"In the new theory of Lorentz the principle of relativity holds, in conformity
with the results of experiment, for all electrodynamic events." 46
Albert stated that,
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
If we set x' = x - vt, then it is evident, that a point resting in system k
attains a fixed system of values x', y, z, independent of time. First of all,
we ascertain [tau] as a function of x', y, z, and t. Toward this end, we have
to express in equations that [tau] is nothing but the sum total of the readings
of clocks resting in system k, which have been rendered synchronous according
to the rule given in § 1.
If a ray of light is sent from the origin of system k at the time [tau]0 along
the X-axis to x', and is reflected from there at the time [tau]1 toward the
origin of the coordinates, where it arrives at the time [tau]2, then it must be
that:
½ ( [tau]0 + [tau]2 ) = [tau]1
or, by one's subjoining the arguments of the function [tau] and bringing to
bear the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in the resting
system:
From this it follows, if one selects infinitesimal x', that:
or,
It is noteworthy, that we could have selected any other point as the
starting-point of the ray of light instead of the origin of the coordinates,
and, therefore, the equation just obtained is valid for all values of x', y, z.
An analogous consideration--applied to the Y- and Z-axes--yields, if one
considers that light always propagates along these axes with the velocity ( c2
- v2 )½ as observed from the resting system:
From these equations. . . ."
Now, it is clear that the Einsteins' formulation is nothing other than
Poincaré's, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the two postulates. Neither
postulate states that c' = c. Neither postulate states that there are three
sets of coordinates: one at rest, one in motion, and one artificially wedged in
between absolute rest and uniform motion, or:
x, y, z, t
[xi], [eta], [zeta], [tau]
x', y, z, [tau],
where,
x' = x - vt
and [tau] is the compulsory delusion that anisotropic light speed is an
isotropic clock. Not only is this an obvious parroting of Poincaré, it is the
tacit assumption of length contraction and time dilatation in the utterly
deceptive misrepresentation that [tau]1 is an isotropic, Euclidean clock
measurement valid for both the resting and the moving frames, as if anisotropic
time represents absolute simultaneity, when it is in fact the average of an
anisotropic motion, the round trip of light in a frame of reference in motion
with respect to the medium of light propagation. Constants and proportionality
factors must be artificially factored with the variables of measured length and
time in order to arrive at a second order transformation, which renders light
speed invariant. This is not a derivation, but a circular argument, which begs
the question of the conclusion through the use of nebulous algebraic constants,
which are already tacitly understood before being placed in the equations.
In fact, as the Einsteins' formulation itself reveals,
c' = c +/- v,
or,
and c' is an anisotropic abstraction, or the pretend, pseudo-clock of a
non-uniform motion posing, in the pseudo-relativists' delusions, as an
isotropic clock, which pretense does not signify length contraction, time
dilatation, or relative simultaneity, but is instead the delusion of
pseudo-relativists that their self-contradicting definition of "simultaneity"
is internally consistent, and compulsory, when it is, obviously, false on its
face. Having fallen on its face, the proposed synchronization of "identical"
clocks, as prescribed, does not define simultaneity in a relative or an
absolute fashion, but instead imposes an artifice on measurement, which is not,
and cannot be, met.
Since the Einsteins' aping of Poincaré cannot represent the relativization of
space or time, for it relies upon absolute velocity, and, further since round
trip light propagation is an anisotropic motion between inertial systems in
relative motion--since light is an anisotropic clock, it ought to be easy
demonstrate the internal inconsistencies of the Einsteins' formulation of
Lorentz' theory, and it is.
I return to the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is not a test of the special
theory of relativity, and amend it per Arthur Schuster's requirements,61 so as
to make it become a test of Lorentz' theory of a resting æther and the
Einsteins' equivalent theory of the absolute velocity of light in vacuo, as
well as Newton's corpuscular theory, and the more modern, Poincaré special
theory of relativity.
In the original Michelson-Morley experiment, it was supposed that the æther
rested in absolute space, and that the Earth moved through the resting æther.
Michelson believed that when he had set the interference fringe pattern on his
interferometer, rotating the apparatus would cause each axis to accelerate in
the æther wind. The axis, which was facing the æther wind, would rotate out of
that position, such that its length had zero velocity with respect to the
æther. The axis, which initially had no velocity along its length, would
accelerate upon rotation to the full velocity of the Earth's motion with
respect to the æther.
Since the apparatus was initially set to render simultaneous the return of both
pencils of light to the screen, rotating the axes, giving them the impulse to
contrary accelerations, to contrary velocities in the æther wind, should have
caused the interference pattern to shift. This assumes that the two axes of the
interferometer remain perfectly rigid at all times during which readings were
taken.
As I have tried to explain, a body which is put into motion with respect to its
former state, is no longer, in any sense, the "same body". Lorentz argued that
Michelson's experiment was not a valid test for the hypothetical relative
motion of the earth through the æther, on the grounds that, inter alia,
accelerated bodies contract, which factors make it impossible to register the
addition of velocities with respect to light propagation through the means
Michelson employed. The Einsteins avowed that the vacuum evinced no
characteristic properties in optics, in systems of reference, in which the
equations of Newtonian mechanics are valid, and, therefore, Michelson's
experiment could not, in principle, detect an addition of velocities with
respect to light.
In terms of Newton's corpuscular theory of light, Michelson's experiment
records nothing. It is no more a detector of absolute motion, than a ping pong
game on board a ship is a measure of the vessel's velocity with respect to the
sea.
However, both Lorentz' and the Einsteins' theories effectively presuppose an
æther wind in the form of c +/- v, and their theories predict that the "æther
wind" is observable, though not by means of the Michelson experiment. Since the
"æther wind" is detectable, space, time and simultaneity are not relative, in
either theory. Rather, as even the ancients knew, measurement is relational,
and space, time, and simultaneity are the immutable, abstract, conceptualized
substratum for visualizing physical reality.
In order to detect the "æther wind", not in reality, but in the precepts of the
special theory of relativity, one need only conduct a thought experiment
suggested by Arthur Schuster.61 Remove from the Michelson experiment its rigid
attachments and its rotation. Instead, in the abstract space of an inertial
system K, allow each component of the interferometer to remain detached from
the others. Adjust the instrument until the desired interference fringe pattern
is achieved.
Please keep two things in mind. One, that light is an anisotropic round trip
motion between inertial systems in relative motion to each other. It is the
very anisotropy of light speed, which renders its measured value isotropic, in
inertial systems, in the special theory of relativity, with its Lorentz
transformation. If light were truly assumed to be isotropic in all inertial
systems, given the Lorentz transformation, light speed would be measured to be
anisotropic. Two, that all inertial systems, and light, itself, are uniform
rectilinear translations of the æther--vacuum. As such, time is defined by any
relative motion between inertial systems, which is to say, time is defined by
all inertial motions--as circularly defined--as equal spaces traversed in equal
times--uniform motions.
Apply individual accelerative forces to each individual component of the
interferometer. Remember that the individual components are not rigidly
attached to each other. Mete out the forces such that the relevant surfaces of
the interferometer remain at relative rest, as observed by observers resting
relative to K, throughout the acceleration of the interferometer.
The accelerated interferometer forms an independent system, system k. Though
the relevant surfaces of the system k remain at relative rest, though
accelerating, as observed by observers who rest relative to inertial system K,
the surfaces appear to separate from each other, as observed by observers
co-moving with system k, due to the kinematic contraction of their form. Though
it appears to observers co-moving with system k that the individual components
of the interferometer are accelerating away from each other, the observers at
rest relative to k cannot determine which component is forced from which other
component, during acceleration.
Cease the application of forces to the interferometer, such that the relevant
surfaces of it remain in relative rest, as observed by all inertial observers.
System k is now understood to be an inertial system, moving with respect to
inertial system K.
Since both Lorentz' and the Einsteins' theories avow that the velocity of light
relative to the inertially moving interferometer, as determined by observers at
rest relative to system K, is c +/- v, where celeritas is the absolute velocity
of light, and v is the relative velocity of translation of the interferometer,
as measured by observers resting relative to system K, the interferometer will
record a shift in the interference bands, and thereby detect the æther wind,
for light's motion, as well as that of each inertial system, is a uniform,
rectilinear translation of space--the æther.
Now, speaking in terms of Lorentz' and the Einsteins' theories, the individual
parts of the interferometer undergo a Lorentz transformation, and not a
Galilean transformation, and, therefore, the measured speed of light remains
invariant in all inertial systems--even though the æther wind has been
detected. As such, we see that the Einsteins' principle of relativity is a
fallacy, for the concept absolute space does evince characteristic properties,
that of a unique frame of the absolute velocity of light, manifest in the
detection of the æther wind, to name but one such characteristic property. . .
. Of course, the precept that the velocity of light relative to its medium is
an absolute velocity, is a religious concept, and not a scientific one.
Furthermore, detecting the æther wind does not, of necessity, map the medium,
and a thorough analysis of the Einsteins' principle of relativity, in this
context, quickly becomes an argument over semantics and the epistemology of
positive and negative assertions.
The predictions of the same thought experiment, interpreted pursuant to the
precepts of Newtonian theory, results in no effect. Pursuant to the dragged
æther theory, there ought to be a detection of the æther wind.
We see that it is not space, time, or simultaneity, which are relative in the
special theory of relativity, but the variables of material bodies in the form
of mutable, arbitrarily "synchronized" clocks, mutable measuring rods, and
mutable (self-contradictory) definitions of simultaneity, for, if space were
relative, no interferometer could detect the æther wind, given the other absurd
notions of the theory, such as the artifice that the detection of an æther wind
equates to the detection of absolute space. We further note that "space" and
"time", when equated to light propagation, are not reciprocally dependant upon
observation, but exist independently of measurement, and, viz. my thought
experiment, must be Euclidean if the Lorentz-Einstein theory is reasonable.
It is significant to note that measured light speed is predicted to remain
invariant for co-moving observers, pursuant to the Lorentz Transformation, but
that the experiment still predicts (for the Lorentz-Einstein theory) a positive
result for the detection of the æther wind. Pursuant to the theory, observers
at rest with respect to the interferometer will account for the apparent
separation of its components along the axis of its motion, as an effect of
their acceleration, knowing that they have contracted. Their beliefs are
justified, for all inertial systems are uniform translations of the æther, and,
therefore, the fact that the components have remained at relative rest while
accelerating through K, as observed by those at rest with respect to K, evinces
that the apparatus' absolute velocity has changed and that it is this change in
absolute velocity, which would account for the predicted positive result of the
experiment, given the arbitrary nature of position-time in the theories. The
reciprocity of rigid bodies is shown to be a delusion, unrelated to continuous
space and time, with their being no absolute geometric form to rest, but
rather, with bodies being affected by the physical states in which they are
manifest.
Another thought experiment demonstrates most dramatically that it is not space,
per se, which is relative in the special theory of relativity, but only the
variable means of measurement, and the entirely artificial and
self-contradictory definition of simultaneity. In inertial system K, or in the
resting frame of space itself, the so-called "vacuum", place three objects
together, but leave them unattached. Take a long, rigid rod, R, and at each of
its ends, points a and b, place two tiny spheres, spheres A and B. As in the
interferometer experiment, use independent forces on each body to accelerate
each through K with a like acceleration in a common direction, such that their
centers of mass remain at relative rest as observed by observers at rest
relative to K. The special theory of relativity predicts that the rod will
contract and points a and b will withdraw from spheres A and B.
The Einsteins' 1905 paper in Part I, Section 3, compels that an acceleration of
rods, which are identical in all respects, take place in order to establish
reciprocity. On its face, the Einsteins' mandate is irrational, for two objects
which are in all respects identical, are one object, but, more significantly,
no "rigid" rod exists, and if it did it would not contract, for it would be
rigid, and even if it were able to contract and yet be rigid--if the Petitio
Principii definition of "relative simultaneity" were valid instead of being the
fallacy which it is, it would not represent reciprocity, for it had contracted
and become unlike its twin, and even beyond these absurdities (supposedly
explained via relative simultaneity, though not explained, as the definition is
circular, and we do not and cannot measure through light synchronization)
reciprocity is disproven by the rod and spheres thought experiment stated
above, which evinces that space is indifferent to the motions of bodies, and
that the proposed FitzGerald contraction is a dynamic effect, not a kinematic
"perspective" of measurement. Stating that a method of measurement, which
method is never performed, is the cause of length contraction, is equivalent to
stating that observing light is the cause of light. It is yet another fallacy
of the special theory of relativity. If we ever come to observe reciprocal
length contraction, it will then be a real thing caused of itself, not a
"perspective" resulting from a "method" of measurement, which "method" is
impossible to perform.
One must interpret the Einsteins' paper to mean that each system of reference,
in inertial relative motion, is to be treated, mathematically, with respect to
Maxwell's equations, as if it were at rest relative to the medium. However,
this view is contradicted by the face of the 1905 paper, as said interpretation
contradicts the mandate that the equations of Newtonian mechanics be valid,
and, further, in that it would render the two postulates redundant.
The equations of mechanics compel that we adopt c +/- v when formulating the
laws of electrodynamics and optics, for the equations of mechanics account for
relative motion in a Euclidean fashion. The 1905 paper employs c +/- v. Systems
of coordinates which do not transform according to Galilean geometry, do not
conform to the equations of Newtonian mechanics. Therefore, the "first
postulate" is proven false, as Maxwell's equations are not expressed as if
there were no c +/- v for systems in relative motion, but rather they are an
expression of Galilean geometry for the transformations of systems. The purpose
of the 1905 paper is to demonstrate how the measured velocity of light does not
obey the Galilean transformation, by hypothesizing length contraction, time
dilatation and relative simultaneity. The velocity of light is still absolute
in the 1905 paper, as expressly stated in the "second postulate", but it is
also measured to be invariant, due to the kinematic effects on moving
bodies--in precisely the same geometric fashion as in Lorentz.
The Einsteins blundered and stated yet another mutually exclusive proposition,
by demanding that Newtonian mechanics be valid, then compelling that Newtonian
mechanics be abandoned, in exchange for Poincaré's
"entirely new mechanics, which would be, above all, characterised by this fact,
that no velocity could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature
could fall below the zero absolute, because bodies would oppose an increasing
inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this
inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light."
One should note here, that a body which cannot be accelerated by any force, no
matter how great, is moving at an observable, absolute rate, pursuant to the
theory, as is light. Not knowing which frame is at rest with respect to this
absolute velocity, does not obviate the alleged absolute nature, their absolute
direction and their absolute speed, of such motions. That another body can be
moving in an inertial frame away from such an absolutely nearly-luminally
moving body, evinces that Lorentz' theory comes closer to being internally
consistent, than does Poincaré's, for with Lorentz motions are
omnidirectionally being related to an æther.
We have Mileva and Albert proclaiming in 1905 that,
"One immediately sees, that this result is also still valid if the clock moves
in an arbitrary, polygonal line from A to B, and, of course, if the points A
and B coincide.
If one assumes that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, then one obtains the proposition: If at A there are
two synchronously running clocks and one moves one of the clocks in a closed
curve with a constant velocity, until it again arrives back at A, which lasts
for t seconds, then the latter clock upon its arrival at A runs ½ t (v / c)2
seconds slow in comparison with the unmoved clock. Therefore, one concludes
that a balance-clock located at the equator must run more slowly by a very
small amount, than a clock of exactly the same construction located at one of
the Earth's poles, ceteris paribus."
The Einsteins expressly state that a clock which is resting records the
accurate, absolute time of travel, and that a moving clock runs slow. There are
the absolute time of the journey, the clock which has remained at rest, and the
traveled clock. The Einsteins' statement quoted above again proves that the
"resting system" referred to in the 1905 paper, is one at absolute rest. The
Einsteins' notion that the motion of the equator with respect to a pole is a
curved motion refers that motion to absolute space, a privileged frame, as the
relative "motion" of equator and pole is one of rest--zero. The notion that
clocks would show a difference of time between equator and pole is one: that
the absolute motion at the equator must, of necessity, be greater than the
absolute motion of the pole; and further that time dilatation is an absolute
effect, and not a reciprocal, relative effect of an impossible measurement
procedure. The Einsteins' paper is, therefore, a far more primitive
understanding of relativistic concepts than Poincaré's prior work, and the
Einsteins' principle of relativity is shown to be a fallacy, for the concept of
absolute rest does indeed, in their theory, correspond to characteristic
properties of the phenomena in electrodynamics.
Poincaré understood the paradox that inertial motion compels absolute space and
motion, but that the principle of relativity made it impossible to detect
absolute rest, while said selfsame principle compels absolute directions and
motion. Poincaré had the insight to see that empirical observation led to
contradictions in classical mechanics and that quandary called for a new
mechanics. Poincaré also acknowledged that "time of position" is an artifice,
arrived at definitionally--circularly, and is an artificial definition of
abstract position, not relative or absolute simultaneity.
The Einsteins, on the other hand, took the assumption of absolute rest as the
fundamental assumption of their theory--their point of departure. They naïvely
followed Newtonian mythology, and tweeked it by postulating length contraction,
time dilatation, and a self-contradictory definition of simultaneity, an
arbitrary and impossible procedure of clock synchronization, such that the
velocity of light would not serve as a measure of absolute rest, but would
serve as a measure of artificially defined distance, time and
simultaneity--Poincaré's myths reduced to absolutes. The Einsteins' 1905 theory
is Drude's interpretation of Lorentz' theory with an overt statement of the
addition of velocities. It was far more primitive than Poincaré's theory, in
that it lacked insight into the contradictions of classical mechanics with
regards to relative motion and inertial motion, which necessitated the pursuit
of a general relativity theory.
Moving on to the light postulate, Mileva and Albert were confused, as is proven
by the face of the paper. They stated that both the postulates 2 (a) and 2 (b)
were the same postulate. However, they are not, but differ greatly in
conception and application.
The postulate 2 (b) represents the relative velocity of light to a body, which
velocity represents a derived identity in the "resting system"--a system of
material coordinates, which we are asked to accept reflects the dimensions of
the stated medium, "empty space" or absolutely "resting" space. This phrase,
"resting system", apes Hertz-Larmor-Cohn-Lorentz discussing Maxwellian dynamics
of absolute space. As the Einsteins indicate, velocity is a derived unit, for,
c = d / t ,
and distance and time units are not derived units, but are fundamental units of
empirical observation. Velocity is a unit measure made in abstraction through
the a posteriori synthesis of the empirical units of length and time--velocity
is a derived unit,62 and length and time are NOT derived units, but are
directly observed. Velocity is subjective and metaphysical.
There are no dimensions to "empty space". Therefore, there are no "coordinates"
in "empty space". There are no discontinuous "lengths" in empty space, nor are
there discontinuous durations of empty space. Therefore, there is no velocity
of propagation in empty space. There can be no a posteriori synthesis of
empirical length and empirical time into a celeritas in a system of continuous
"empty space", which "empty space" is without dimension.
Empty space cannot be taken to signify an idealization of extension and
duration. This is obvious in the Einsteins' argument, as they must fill the
"empty space" of the resting system with "resting" rods, "resting" measuring
rods, and "resting" clocks--a quite cluttered empty space. The "coordinates"
are in fact conceptualized bodies, and the measured velocity is not measured in
the "coordinates" of "empty space", but is assumed equal to the conceptualized
dimensions of bodies and the pretended, idealized synchronization of material
changes in bodies, i. e. "clocks", which are always uniform motions, and,
therefore, cannot be "resting clocks". Celeritas is, therefore, the subjective
comparison of the unit length of a pretend material body metaphysically divided
by a pretend unit duration of "uniform" (circularly defined) material change,
which purely mathematical pretend "identity" is then ontologically defined as a
universally constant "celeritas", with physical properties. The metaphysical
"velocity" is absurdly worshiped as "physical", in pure mathematics. However,
it is entirely artificial to take the dynamic velocity of Maxwell's equations,
c, and to then assert it as a postulate used to derive the units from which it
itself is derived. Ten apples plus the Earth's gravitational field may result
in the scalar weight of five pounds, but one should not, on that basis, assert
that, therefore, five pounds always equals ten apples plus the Earth's
gravitational field. That light is assumed to propagate dynamically at c in
æther relative to the æther, does not mean that this value of light speed,
taken as a scalar, is to be used to derive length, time and simultaneity of
moving systems of reference.
The Einsteins apparently copied Poincaré's work of 1898 (and 1904) on relative
simultaneity, and followed his prescriptions for it. Poincaré, who was copying
Bergson, who was following Flammarion, who, doubtless, was inspired by Cassini,
Roemer and Bradley, stated,
"When an astronomer tells me that some stellar phenomenon, which his telescope
reveals to him at this moment, happened nevertheless fifty years ago, I seek
his meaning, and to that end I shall ask him first how he knows it, that is,
how he has measured the velocity of light.
He has begun by supposing that light has a constant velocity, and in particular
that its velocity is the same in all directions. That is a postulate without
which no measurement of this velocity could be attempted. This postulate could
never be verified directly by experiment; it might be contradicted by it if the
results of different measurements were not concordant. We should think
ourselves fortunate that this contradiction has not happened and that the
slight discordances which may happen can be readily explained. The postulate,
at all events, resembling the principle of sufficient reason, has been accepted
by everybody; what I wish to emphasize is that it furnishes us with a new rule
for the investigation of simultaneity, entirely different from that which we
have enunciated above. [***] It is difficult to separate the qualitative
problem of simultaneity from the quantitative problem of the measurement of
time; no matter whether a chronometer is used, or whether account must be taken
of a velocity of transmission, as that of light, because such a velocity could
not be measured without measuring a time."
The Einsteins' postulate 2 (a) is an unoriginal a posteriori definition of the
assumed absolute velocity of light propagating in the ill-defined medium of
hypothetical "empty space", which hypothesis cannot be conceptualized
rationally, but is apparently a flawed attempt to state the resultant dynamic
velocity of Maxwell's equations for light in its medium. Albert confesses this
exact proposition,
"[The special theory of relativity] takes over from the theory of
Maxwell-Lorentz the assumption of the constancy of the velocity of light in
empty space [which contradicts the equivalence of inertial frames]. In order to
bring this into harmony with the equivalence of inertial systems (special
principle of relativity), the idea of the absolute character of simultaneity
must be given up; in addition, the Lorentz Transformations for the time and the
space coordinates follow for the transition from one inertial system to
another."63
Obviously, this velocity
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
medium (empty space)."64
This postulate is an ill-conceived synthesis of Maxwell's absolute velocity of
light propagating in æther, which was a dynamic velocity, and not a kinematic
velocity, combined ungracefully with W. K. Clifford's proposition,
"In order to explain the phenomena of light, it is not necessary to assume
anything more than a periodical oscillation between two states at any given
point of space",
and P. Drude's,
"The conception of an ether absolutely at rest is the most simple and the most
natural,--at least if the ether is conceived to be not a substance but merely
space endowed with certain physical properties."
The flawed nature of the Einsteins' concept haunted their work for years to
come, after 1905. Albert was forced to define the state of rest as geometric,
and that of uniform motion as kinematic--the result of hypothesized length
contraction and time dilatation of moving material bodies. This geometric
analysis of Maxwell's dynamic equations of the æther is irrevocably
problematic. It results in Einsteinian superstitions, and unrecoverable
contradictions, falsely dubbed "paradoxes".
This oscillation of Clifford's only attains meaning as an oscillation and a
velocity, when it is conceived of as moving relative to a body or body of
medium, and its velocity of oscillation is, of necessity, different from its
velocity of propagation. Therefore, the Einsteins' postulate, which presents a
statement of velocity relative to nothing, is irrational, and represents a
misstatement of Maxwell's equations for the dynamic propagation of light
relative to a quasi-stationary æther, which æther was later taken to signify
absolute space--Carl Neumann's "body Alpha".65 The Lorentz Transformations are
really the metrical workings of Fresnel's coefficient of drag, and the
Doppler-Fizeau Effect relative to the fallacious "body Alpha", expressed
kinematically through Ludwig Lange's "inertial systems".
On the other hand, Lorentz adopted Maxwell's physical explanation of the wave
velocity of the propagation of light in æther, and asserted a velocity relative
to that æther; and Mileva and Albert "disguised" Lorentz' pretentious theory as
a "dimensional" explanation of the assumed wave velocity of the propagation of
light in "empty space", which, we soon discover, is not empty space, but
pretend, resting, material apparatus, which we are asked to equate through
pretense to the dimensions of the pseudo-medium, "empty space". James Mackaye
eloquently describes this in his work, The Dynamical Universe,66 where he
explains that the physical theory of Lorentz was "disguised" as a "dimensional"
theory in the Einsteins' paper.
Wallace Kantor abruptly shattered the two postulate myth, by simply quoting
Albert, himself, and please note that Albert confessed that length contraction
and time dilatation are hypothesized, ad hoc, and not "derived",
"In the special theory of relativity the postulate that the speed of light in
vacuum is independent of the motion of the emitting body means simply that the
speed of light is absolute. Einstein noted in 1905 that the absolute light
speed postulate 'is only apparently irreconcilable' with the principle that all
other motion is relative. On page 57 of his autobiographical notes of 1949
Einstein noted that the two assumptions of relative material motion and
absolute light motion 'are mutually incompatible' but, 'The insight which is
fundamental for the special theory of relativity' is that the two assumptions
'are compatible if relations of a new type ('Lorentz Transformations') are
postulated for the conversion of coordinates and times of events.' The Lorentz
Transformations are based on the two postulates of relative and absolute
motion. It is a baffling circular 'insight' that requires the postulation of
the Lorentz Transformations to comprehend the stated mutual incompatibility of
the two postulates on which the transformations themselves are based."67
It is significant to note, despite the illogic involved in the task, that
Mileva and Albert sought to axiomatically define the absolute velocity of light
in its medium, as the Maxwell-Hertz formulation of electrodynamics. The second
postulate expresses the sentiments of Max Abraham, when he wrote in 1904,
"The electromagnetic theory addresses the absolute motion of light, which light
issues forth in every direction with the same velocity (c)"
"Die elektromagnetische Theorie spricht von einer absoluten Bewegung des
Lichtes, die nach jeder Richtung hin mit derselben Geschwindigkeit (c)
erfolgt"68
The Einsteins' theory is clearly NOT a relativity theory, but is in fact a
theory of absolutism, in which Newton's absolutism is further justified, not
nullified! For example, we find in their 1905 paper the arbitrary statement,
"We stipulate in accordance with experience, that the magnitude
( 2AB ) / ( t'A - tA ) = c,
is a universal constant (the velocity of light in empty space)."
and
"[L]ight in empty space always propagates with a determinate velocity c
irrespective of the state of motion of the emitting body."
Such statements are pure absolutism. Experience, however, sans Lorentz
geometry, shows us that,
( 2AB ) / ( t'A - tA ) = c,
is a unique case of
( 2AB ) / ( t'A - tA ) = c [ 1 - ( v / c )2 ],
valid only in a system at rest with respect to the homogenous and isotropic
medium of propagation. One immediately sees how FitzGerald arrived at his
contraction factor.
It is obvious that the Einsteins' statement of the absolute velocity of light
refers axiomatically only to the "resting system" in absolute space. One cannot
apply that statement axiomatically to a moving system, but must derive the
resulting invariant speed from the hypotheses of length contraction, time
dilatation and relative simultaneity, some of the additional postulates which
appear in the 1905 paper, despite the mythologies set forth by noted experts on
the subject, that only two postulates appeared.
The hypotheses of length contraction and time dilatation come first. They are
essential to a correlation of the two postulates and cannot be derived from
them. It is as though God himself had mandated an invariant measured velocity
to light--the conclusion which Minkowski asked us to accept,
"This hypothesis [length contraction resulting in light speed invariance]
sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a
consequence of resistances [sic] in the ether, or anything of that kind, but
simply as a gift from above [***] [T]he word relativity-postulate for the
requirement of an invariance with the group Gc seems to me very feeble. [***] I
prefer to call it the postulate of the absolute world. [***] Thus the essence
of this postulate may be clothed mathematically in a very pregnant manner in
the mystic formula 3 105 = (-1)1/2 secs."69
Samuel Alexander held that,
"[I]t is clear that Space-Time takes for us the place of what is called the
Absolute in idealistic systems. It is an experiential absolute."70
Max Planck stated,
"Einstein's recognition of the fact that our Newtonian-Kantian conception of
space and time possesses in a certain sense only a relative value because of
the arbitrary choice of the system of correlation and methods of measuring,
affects the very root of our physical thought. But if space and time have been
deprived of their absolute qualities, the absolute has not been disposed of
finally, but has only been moved back a step to the measurement of
four-dimensional multiplicity which results from the fact that space and time
have been fused into one coherent continuum by means of the speed of light.
This system of measurement represents something totally independent of any kind
of arbitrariness and hence something absolute."71
and
" For everything that is relative presupposes the existence of something that
is absolute, and is meaningful only when juxtaposed to something absolute. The
often heard phrase, "Everything is relative," is both misleading and
thoughtless. The Theory of Relativity, too, is based on something absolute,
namely, the determination of the matrix of the space-time continuum; and it is
an especially stimulating undertaking to discover the absolute which alone
makes meaningful something given as relative. [***] Our task is to find in all
these factors and data, the absolute, the universally valid, the invariant,
that is hidden in them, [sic] This applies to the Theory of Relativity, too. I
was attracted by the problem of deducing from its fundamental propositions that
which served as their absolute immutable foundation. [***] [T]he Theory of
Relativity confers an absolute meaning on a magnitude which in classical theory
has only a relative significance: the velocity of light. The velocity of light
is to the Theory of Relativity [***] its absolute core. The absolute showed
itself to be even more deeply rooted in the order of natural laws than had been
assumed for a long time."72
Bertrand Russell wrote in "The ABC of Relativity",
"In fact, though few physicists in modern times have believed in absolute
motion, the [special theory of relativity] still embodied Newton's belief in
[absolute motion], and a revolution in method was required to obtain a
technique free from this assumption. This revolution was accomplished in
Einstein's general theory of relativity [1916]. [--redacted, emphasis added]"73
Ebenezer Cunningham averred,
"[I]t will be seen, the old philosophical difficulty as to absolute direction
or angular velocity remains. [***] Thus we do not appear to be brought any
nearer to the removal of the old-time difficulty that the physical laws which
seem best to describe the phenomena of motion postulate an absolute standard of
direction though not of position, while apart from the physical phenomena there
is no independent means of identifying such a direction."74
Charles Nordmann recognized that,
"Up to this point the theory of Relativity well deserves its name. But now, in
spite of it and its very name, there arises something which seems to have an
independent and determined existence in the external world, an objectivity, an
absolute reality. This is the "Interval" of events, which remains constant and
invariable through all the fluctuations of things, however infinitely varied
may be the points of view and standards of reference. From this datum, which,
speaking philosophically, strangely shares the intrinsic qualities with which
the older absolute time and absolute space were so much reproached, the whole
constructive part of Relativity, the part which leads to the splendid
verifications we described, is derived. Thus the theory of Relativity seems to
deny its origin, even its very name, in all that makes it a useful monument of
science, a constructive tool, an instrument of discovery. It is a theory of a
new absolute: the interval represented by the geodetics of the
quadri-dimensional universe. It is a new absolute theory."75
Melchior Palágyi stated,
"Die durch Einstein eingeführte Bennenung: 'Relativitätstheorie' ist zwar
höchst unglücklich gewählt; wir behalten sie aber bei wie irgendeinen
beliebigen Eigennamen, den man nicht abändern mag, weil man sich an ihn gewöhnt
hat. Relativitätstheorie bedeutet uns immer nur so viel als: das neue
Weltsystem, das aus der Einheitslehre von Raum und Zeit und das der
Vereinheitlichung von Mechanik und Elektrodynamik entspringt."76
And Albert professed, after the general theory was established, that,
"There is no absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in
space, and no absolute relation in time between two events, but there is an
absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space and time"77
Claude Kacser affirmed,
"What is absolute is stated in Einstein's first relativity postulate: The basic
laws of physics are identical for two observers who have a constant relative
velocity with respect to each other."78
Joshua N. Goldberg informs us that,
"Minkowski space is an absolute space-time."79
Robert Resnick concluded that,
"The theory of relativity could have been called the theory of absolutism with
some justification. [***] there are absolute lengths and times in relativity.
[***] Where relativity theory is clearly "more absolute" than classical physics
is in the relativity principle itself: the laws of physics are absolute."80
It is some strange "relativity theory", which is more absolutist than classical
absolutism! The knowingly false appellation under which the "relativists"
masquerade speaks volumes as to their desire to perpetuate their delusions, and
their stubborn willingness to pretend in spite of the facts, rather than to be
rational. The Einsteins' paper of 1905 was a paper on absolute space, the
absolute velocity of light, and the absolute laws of Nature. It is by no means
a theory of relativity. Albert maintained a belief in absolute space up until
the publication of his paper on the general theory of relativity in 1916. Both
so-called "postulates", the "postulate of the absolute world" feebly called the
"principle of relativity", and the "postulate" of the absolute velocity of
light, are self-contradicting, absolutist fantasies--evidence that a belief in
the two "postulates" is seductive only to those willing to worship mythology.
Minkowski knew that the term "relativity postulate" was a feeble misnomer, even
if space is taken as the relational, uniform translation of reference systems,
for there is yet an absolute world lurking as the substratum for the invariants
and intervals. However, the "absolute world" is nothing physical. It is simply
the axiomatic effect of a set of human, abstract, mathematical rules, existing
only in abstract language, and nothing more. There is nothing surprising or
revelatory in the fact that rules which are taken as absolute prescribe
absolutes.
So, we see that it is a myth that the "two postulates" are indeed postulates,
for they are a dynamic, absolutist definition, and an absolutist corollary to
that artificial definition. It is a myth that the theory of relativity is a
relativity theory at all, for it is absolutism. Both "postulates" were
enunciated long before the Einsteins copied them. And, we see that it is a myth
that the so-called Lorentz Transformation was "derived" in the 1905 paper from
the "two postulates", for the Einsteins arrived at it Petitio Principii, using
it to arrive at it, so as to irrationally disguise their aping the theory of
Lorentz.
Notes:
1. Sir Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity,
Vol. II, Philosophical Library Inc., New York, (1954), pp. 27-77.
2. M. Einstein-Marity and A. Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,
Annalen der Physik, 17, (1905), pp. 891-921.
3. W. Kantor, Relativistic Propagation of Light, Coronado Press, Lawrence,
Kansas, (1976).
4. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen
Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), pp. 411-462.
5. Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity: A Facsimile,
George Braziller, Inc., (1996), pp. 73, 79, 91.
6. M. v. Laue, Das Relativitätsprinzip, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig,
(1911), § 6.
7. A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen der
Physik, 49, 7, (1916), pp. 769-822; trans. into English by W. Perrett and G. B.
Jeffery, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), pp. 111-164.
A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Barth, Leipzig,
(1916).
8. L. Lange, Über die wissenschaftliche Fassung der Galilei'schen
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig,
mathematisch-physische Classe, 37, (1885), pp. 333-351.
L. Lange, Die geschichtliche Entwickelung des Bewegungsbegriffs und ihr
voraussichtliches Endergebniss. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Kritik der
mechanischen Principien von Ludwig Lange. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann,
Leipzig, (1886).
L. Lange, Das Inertialsystem vor dem Forum der Naturforschung, Leipzig, (1902).
L. Lange, Das Inertialsystem vor dem Forum der Naturforschung: Kritisches und
Antikritisches, Philosophische Studien, 20, (1902) pp. 1-71.
E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics, Open Court, (1960), pp. 291-297.
E. Gehrcke, Kritik der Relativitätstheorie, Hermann Meusser, Berlin, (1924),
pp. 17, 30-34.
E. Gehrcke, Über den Sinn der Absoluten Bewegung von Körpern, Sitzberichten
der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XII, Jahrgang,
(1912), pp. 209-222.
E. Gehrcke, Über die Koordinatensystem der Mechanik, Verhandlung der Deutschen
Physikalischen Gesellschaft, XV, Jahrgang, (1913), pp. 260-266.
H. Seeliger, Vierteljahrsschrift der astronomischen Gesellschaft, XXII, p. 252.
9. E. Gehrcke, Über den Sinn der Absoluten Bewegung von Körpern,
Sitzberichten der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XII,
Jahrgang, (1912), pp. 209-222.
E. Gehrcke, Über die Koordinatensystem der Mechanik, Verhandlung der Deutschen
Physikalischen Gesellschaft, XV, Jahrgang, (1913), pp. 260-266.
10. M. v. Laue, Die Relativitätstheorie, Erster Band (Vol. I), Das
Relativitätsprinzip der Lorentztransformation, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn,
Braunschweig, (1921), p. 7.
11. A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen
der Physik, 49, 7, (1916), pp. 770.
12. A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen
der Physik, 49, 7, (1916), pp. 772.
13. A. Einstein, Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie,
Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, (1917), pp. 7-8.
14. J. Laub, Annalen der Physik, 23, (1907), pp. 738-744.
15. H. Minkowski, Annalen der Physik, 47, (1915), pp. 927-938.
H. Minkowski, "Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in
bewegten Körpern", Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen, (1908), pp.
53-111; reprinted in: Gesammelte Abhandlungen, edited by D. Hilbert, B. G.
Teubner, Leipzig, Vol. 2, pp. 352-404; translated into English: The Principle
of Relativity: Original Papers by A. Einstein and H. Minkowski Translated into
English by M. N. Saha and S. N. Bose, University of Calcutta, (1920), H.
Minkowski, "Principle of Relativity", translated by Dr. Meghnad N. Saha, pp.
1-52.
H. Minkowski, "Raum und Zeit", Physikalische Zeitschrift, 10, (1909), 104-111;
reprinted in "Gesammelte Abhandlungen", Edited by D. Hilbert, B. G. Teubner,
Leipzig, Vol. 2, pp. 431-444; translated into English by: W. Perrett and G. B.
Jeffery, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), pp. 75-91.
16. H. Poincaré's lecture from September of 1904, The Monist, 15, 1, January,
(1905), p. 5; reprinted in: The Value of Science and The Foundations of
Science; (herein reprinted).
17. H. Poincaré, Œuvres de Henri Poincaré, Vol. IX, Gautier-Villars, (1954),
p. 412; reprinted from: "A PROPOS DE LA THÉORIE DE M. LARMOR", L'Éclairage
électrique, Vol. 5, (October 5th, 1895) pp. 5-14.
18. Cf. T.H. Pasley, A Theory of Natural Philosophy, on Mechanical Principles,
Divested of All Immaterial Chymical Properties, Showing for the First Time the
Physical Cause of Continuous Motion, Whittaker & Co., London, (1836).
19. A. Schuster, The Progress of Physics during 33 years (1875-1908) Four
Lectures delivered to the University of Calcutta during March 1908, CUP,
(1911), pp. 109-111.
20. "The group of the Galilean Transformations" "die Gruppe der
Galilei-Transformationen" is an appellation supplied by Philipp Frank, Die
Stellung des Relativitätsprinzips im System der Mechanik und der
Elektrodynamik, Sitzungsberichte der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe
der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 118, (1909), p. 382.
21. Cf. W. Kantor, Relativistic Propagation of Light, Coronado Press, Lawrence,
Kansas, (1976).
22. H. A. Lorentz, Das Relativitätsprinzip; drei Vorlesungen gehalten in
Teylers Stiftung zu Haarlem, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig-Berlin, (1920). p. 23.
23. W. Pauli, Theory of Relativity, Pergamon Press, London, Edinburgh, New
York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Braunschweig, (1958), p. 5.
24. A. Sommerfeld, Electrodynamics, Academic Press, (1952), p. 235.
25. A. Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, translated by: G. B. Jeffery and W.
Perret, Methuen & Co., London, (1922); republished, unabridged and unaltered:
Dover, New York, (1983), pp. 16-24.
26. The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952). p. 83.
27. H. A. Lorentz, Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with any
Velocity Smaller than that of Light, Proceedings of the Royal Academy of
Sciences at Amsterdam, 6, May 27th, (1904), p. 809; (herein reprinted).
28. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen
Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), p. 413.
29. E. Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung, 3rd Ed., F. A. Brockhaus,
Leipzig, (1897), pp. 236-237.
30. A. Schuster, The Progress of Physics during 33 years (1875-1908) Four
Lectures delivered to the University of Calcutta during March 1908, CUP,
(1911), pp. 114-117.
31. H. Dingle, in his introduction to H. Bergson's, Duration and Simultaneity,
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., Indianapolis, New York, Kansas City, (1965), p.
xlii.
32. J. Larmor, Aether and Matter, CUP, (1900), p. 78.
33. W. Reich, Ether, God and Devil: Cosmic Superimposition, Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, New York, (1973), p. 45.
34. P. Drude, The Theory of Optics, Longmans, Green and Co., London-New
York-Toronto, (1902), pp. 261, 457.
35. Emil Cohn, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen, (1901), p. 74; Annalen der
Physik, 7, (1902), p. 30.
36. W. K. Clifford, Clifford's Lectures and Essays, Vol. I, Macmillan, London,
(1879), p. 85.
37. J. H. Poincaré, Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Comptes rendus
hebdomadaires des séances de L'Académie des sciences, 140, (1905), pp.
1504-1508 (herein reprinted).
J. H. Poincaré, Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Rendiconti del Circolo
matimatico di Palermo, 21, (1906, submitted July 23rd, 1905), pp. 129-176.
English trans. by H. M. Schwartz, Amer. Jour. Of Phys. 39, (November, 1971),
1287-1294; 40, (June, 1972), 1282-1287; 40, (September, 1972), 1282-1287.
38. W. Voigt, "Ueber das Doppler'sche Princip", Nachrichten von der
Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität
zu Göttingen, (1887), p. 41; reprinted Physikalische Zeitschrift, 16, (1915),
p. 381, (herein reprinted).
39. S. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity, Birkhäuser, Boston, Basel,
Stuttgart, (1984), p. 456.
40. Cf. D. Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sect. VII, Parts I
& II.
41. J. Larmor, Aether and Matter, CUP, (1900), pp. 272, 278, 279.
42. The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), p. 38; translated by:
W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery.
43. The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), pp. 75-76.
44. H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, Das Relativitätsprinzip (with
notes from A. Sommerfeld), B. G. Teubner, Leipzig-Berlin, (1913), p. 27.
45. G. H. Keswani, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, (1965),
15, 60, pp. 299-300.
46. M. Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London,
(1924), pp. 188.
47. A. Einstein, Physics Today, 35, 8, August, (1982), p. 46.
48. C. V. Durell, Readable Relativity, G. Bell & Sons, Ltd., (1938), reprinted
in James R. Newman, The World of Mathematics, Vol 2, Simon and Schuster, New
York, (1956), p. 1120.
49. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen
Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), p. 413;
translation by: H. M. Schwartz, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 45, No. 6,
June, (1977), p.513.
50. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen
Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), p. 416.
51. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen
Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), p. 416.
52. Max Abraham, Zur Theorie der Strahlung und des Strahlungsdruckes, Annalen
der Physik, 4, 14, (1904), p. 238.
53. W. S. Jevons, The Principles of Science, 2nd Ed., Macmillan, London,
(1877), p. 331.
54. A. Einstein, Physics Today, 35, 8, August, (1982), p. 46.
55. P. Frank, Einstein, His Life and Times, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, (1967),
pp. 32, 54-55. Note that Frank uses Budde's terminology of the 'Fundamental
System' 'F '.
56. A. Reiser, Albert Einstein, a Biographical Portrait, Albert & Charles Boni,
New York, (1930), p. 106-107.
57. J. H. Jeans, An Elementary Treatise on Theoretical Mechanics, Ginn &
Company, Boston-New York-Chicago-London, (1907), p. 33.
58. A. Reiser, Albert Einstein, a Biographical Portrait, Albert & Charles Boni,
New York, (1930), pp. 105-106.
59. Boscovich [Supplement II]
60. J. D. Everett, Elementary Treatise on Natural Philosophy, Part I, 13th Ed.
(1883), p. 43, herein reprinted.
61. A. Schuster, The Progress of Physics during 33 years (1875-1908) Four
Lectures delivered to the University of Calcutta during March 1908, CUP,
(1911), pp. 109-111.
For a discussion of the conceptualization, as well as a useful set of notes and
references, see: J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics,
Paperback Edition, CUP, (1989), Chapter 9, "How to teach special relativity",
pp. 67-80.
62. W. S. Jevons, The Principles of Science, 2nd Ed., revised, London, New
York, Macmillan, (1877), p. 321.
E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, (1960), p.
367.
63. A. Einstein, Relativity, the Special and the General Theory, Crown, New
York, (1961), App. V, p. 148.
64. J. Laub, Zur Optik der bewegten Körper, Annalen der Physik, IV, 23,
(1907), p. 739.
65. C. Neumann, Ueber die Principien der Galilei-Newton'schen Theorie, Leipzig,
1870.
66. J. Mackaye, The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York,
(1931).
67. W. Kantor, Relativistic Propagation of Light, Coronado Press, Lawrence,
Kansas, (1976), p. 18.
68. Max Abraham, Zur Theorie der Strahlung und des Strahlungsdruckes, Annalen
der Physik, 4, 14, (1904), p. 238.
69. The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), pp. 81, 83, 88.
70. S. Alexander, Space, Time, and Deity, Vol. I, Macmillan, London, (1920), p.
346
71. M. Planck quoted in: A. Reiser, Albert Einstein, a Biographical Portrait,
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Albert & Charles Boni, New York, (1930), p. 104.
72. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography, and Other Papers, Philosophical
Library, New York, (1949), pp. 46-48.
73. B. Russell, The ABC of Relativity, The New American Library, New York,
(1959), pp. 62-63.
74. E. Cunningham, The Principle of Relativity, CUP, (1914), pp.8, 90.
75. C. Nordmann, Einstein and the Universe, Henry Holt and Company, New York,
(1922), pp.204-205.
76. M. Palágyi, Die Relativitätstheorie in der modernen Physik, reprinted in:
Zur Weltmechanik, Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig, (1925), p. 36.
77. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton Science Library Ed.,
(1988), pp. 30-31.
78. C. Kacser, "Relativity, Special Theory", Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd Ed.,
VCH Publishers, Inc., New York-Weinheim-Cambridge-Basel, (1991), p. 1052.
79. J. N. Goldberg, "Space-Time", Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd Ed., VCH
Publishers, Inc., New York-Weinheim-Cambridge-Basel, (1991), p. 1159.
80. R. Resnick, Introduction to Special Relativity, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York, London, Sidney, (1968), pp. 92-93.
CopyrightŠ 2000-2001.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes.
All Rights Reserved.
shuba
> The following book is available online at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/christopherjonbjerknes
So why post it to usenet?
> It is intended for distribution and use in the USA only.
With all due respect, Christopher, you are an asshole.
---Tim Shuba---
GLOBARR
In <20010330203946...@ng-fr1.aol.com>
glu...@aol.com (Christopher Jon Bjerknes) wrote:
> . . . .
The Einsteins' relativity theory compels us to pretend: pretend the
definitions represent reality, when they do not;
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
This is correct! Math alone can never be used to represent
our physical reality. LET is the proper way to model physical
things.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes wrote: . . .
pretend the theory is supported by experiment, when it is not;
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
This is correct! All experiments actually support LET, not SR!
Christopher Jon Bjerknes wrote: . . .
pretend that absolute time measured relatively is relative
time and not absolute time, though it is absolute, as
defined;
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
This is correct!
Christopher Jon Bjerknes wrote: . . .
pretend mathematical transformation is physical transformation, when it is
not; etc. . . . Relativity theory is a game of pretense.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
And this now sounds as if there are two O'Barrs on this net!
Thank you, Christopher Jon Bjerknes.
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
(We need to improve the SR FAQ)
David Evens
>In <20010330203946...@ng-fr1.aol.com>
> glu...@aol.com (Christopher Jon Bjerknes) wrote:
>> . . . .
>The Einsteins' relativity theory compels us to pretend: pretend the
>definitions represent reality, when they do not;
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> This is correct! Math alone can never be used to represent
>our physical reality. LET is the proper way to model physical
>things.
So you admit that you are completely unable to find the tiniest flaw
in SR.
>Christopher Jon Bjerknes wrote: . . .
> pretend the theory is supported by experiment, when it is not;
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> This is correct! All experiments actually support LET, not SR!
So you admit that you are totally unfamiliar with any experimental
data.
>Christopher Jon Bjerknes wrote: . . .
>pretend that absolute time measured relatively is relative
>time and not absolute time, though it is absolute, as
>defined;
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> This is correct!
So you admit that you are unable to understand the sentence you just
agreed with.
>Christopher Jon Bjerknes wrote: . . .
> pretend mathematical transformation is physical transformation, when it is
>not; etc. . . . Relativity theory is a game of pretense.
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> And this now sounds as if there are two O'Barrs on this net!
> Thank you, Christopher Jon Bjerknes.
S you admit to intentional trying to mislead people.
Dr Arm®
>
> Abraham F. Joffe recounts that the paper was signed "Einstein-Marity". "Marity"
> is a variant of the Se
> He insisted that two holes be bored through
> his front door, one
> larger than the other, so that both the large cat, and
> the small cat, could
> pass through the door.
This is an excellent idea! And to save space he could have made both
holes coaxial!
da
rbw...@rmi.net
da,
This idea seems like it would be completely unfair to the large cat. If
the large cat tried to do what the small cat would be doing, he would get
stuck in the door. We need legislation to keep this from happening.
Robert B. Winn
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net