Relativity's Philosophical & Mathematical nonsense: 'Transformations’, ‘Length contractions’, ‘Time Dilation’.

None of the claims by the Relativity cult were based on evidence or experimentation. 'Science' may never recover its sanity.

Einstein’s main contribution to ‘science’.

Quoting Einstein: ‘Insofar as the propositions of mathematics give an account of reality they are not certain; and insofar as they are certain they do not describe reality…’.

Morris Kline, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, 1980, p. 6.

Einstein admitted there is no relationship between maths and reality. The two are distinct. My lying eyes tell me that the train crashed into the mountain. Not so says the Einstotle, ‘It is also true to say dat dee mountain crashed into dee train’ he assures me. ‘Relativity’, he condescendingly informs me, smiling, ‘has proven it my little mensche’. The polite and right response is to break out the white strait-jacket, apply it to the Einstotle, and quietly usher him into a small room in a pleasantly located sanitorium and lock the door.

George Fitzgerald, another little sorcerer, who theorised about mass dilation, stones which ‘spill’ their mass into the direction of travel and other science fiction.

George Fitzgerald

The little Irish leprauchan George F. Fitzgerald (1851-1901) helped build the basis of Relativity’s transformation calculus, which at its root, attempted to explain that the entire universe is without any absolutes. As the impish magician told the physicist and spiritualist Oliver Lodge in Liverpool in 1892, it just required a lot of ‘imagination’ to concoct a fantasy world to explain away the failure of Michelson-Morley’s 1887 attempt to find the movement of the Earth.

In essence Fitzgerald, Lorentz and others needed to prove that the physical apparatus was at fault. Namely, that the movement of the Earth could not be found because the measuring devices ‘contracted’ along their length and this counteracted the real movement of the Earth through space (30 km / sec).

Fitzgerald, wearing his lucky charms hat discoursed to Lodge:

“Well, the only way out of it that I can see is that the equality of paths must be inaccurate; the block of stone must be distorted, put out of shape by its motion…the stone would have to shorten in the direction of motion and swell out in the other two directions”.¹

This is the basis of Relativity which employs as its foundation the Lorentz’s ‘transform’ calculus that no one understood. Fitzgerald was not an experimenter. As with Lorentz and Einstein, Fitzgerald was a theorist and a ‘professor’. Somehow, in our mixed-up world, we now equate a theorist with a ‘physicist’, who by definition must be engaged in ‘physical’ experiments. These conjurors, however, never got their hands dirty. They were not scientists.

Einstein had his disciples and marketers such as Eddington. So too did Fitzgerald. On May 27, 1892, Oliver Lodge, using his name and reputation, threw his weight behind the Irishman’s interpretation of the 1887 MM failure. Lodge made it known to the public that, ‘Professor Fitzgerald has suggested a way out of the difficulty by supposing the size of bodies to be a function of their velocity through the ether.’²

Lodge proceeded to give an example of Fitzgerald’s hypothesis. According to Lodge, a length of 8,000 miles (approximately the diameter of the Earth), would have to be shortened only 3 inches in order to account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment.³ It is to laugh. So now the Earth’s diameter - its own mass - is ‘shortening’. Problem solved! MM’s disastrous observations explained! Not really.

If we accept Fitzgerald and Lodge at face value, we now live in a fantasy world, where at the reasonably low velocity of of 30 km / second (in comparison to light speed) there is initiated a contraction of a ‘rod’ or any material including stone. This was their great ‘imagination’ to explain away why the light interference experiments had failed and still fail to find the 30 km /sec movement of the Earth. They blamed the apparatus!

Right on guys.

The little Dutchman Lorentz, who built on Fitzgerald’s fantasy world and fed Einstein ideas about ‘Relativity’ as proven solely using tortured maths equations, now declared to be ‘The Science’.

Lorentz - another little wizard

During this period another little wizard and Nobel winner was a busy bee. In a previous post we discussed Hendrik Lorentz (1853-1928), the Dutch ‘physicist’ who was shattered by the disaster of the 1887 Michelson-Morley failure. Using the work of others, including the diminutive Irishman Fitzgerald, he developed his own ‘transform’ calculus equations that no one really understood, but which generated the ‘right answers’, namely, no movement of this planet can be found, because there is mass dilation in the direction of travel.

The bantam Dutchman purloined his ideas from a paper by Woldemar Voigt written in 1887 on the Doppler effect (Voigt, ‘Über das Dopplersche Prinzip, Nachr. Ges. Wiss.’, 1887 Göttingen). Voigt came to his own theory by analyzing differential equations for oscillations in an incompressible elastic medium, which led to a set of transformation equations to support his theory of the converging or diverging of spherical forces. It wasn’t until many years later that Lorentz acknowledged Voigt’s primary work (some 30 years later). This is typical of how the Relativity cult operates.

Lorentz was also influenced by the Irish charm of Fitzgerald who independently, as given above, was building a theory to ‘prove’ that material ‘swells’ in the direction of travel. Fitzgerald’s maths were often (tautologically) used by Lorentz to justify his own, quite similar equations. The small circle of ‘Relativists’, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Lodge, Voigt et al all knew and corresponded with each other, lending insights and support, if not circular reasoning.

We can summarise Lorentz in his own nearly-indecipherable ‘logic’.

Lorentz: “For if we now understand by S₁ and S₂ not, as formerly, two systems of charged particles, but two systems of molecules – the second at rest and the first moving with a velocity v in the direction of the axis x – between the dimensions of which the relationship subsists as previously stated; and if we assume that in both systems the x components of the forces are the same, while the y and z components differ from one another by the factor √(1 – v²/c²), then it is clear that the forces in S₁ will be in equilibrium whenever they are so in S₂.

If therefore S₂ is the state of equilibrium of a solid body at rest, then the molecules in S₁ have precisely those positions in which they can persist under the influence of translation. The displacement would naturally bring about this disposition of the molecules of its own accord, and thus effect a shortening in the direction of motion in the proportion of 1 to √(1 – v²/c²).”⁴

The 'Lorentz Transformation', the basis of 'Relativity' and its tautological, fantasy world.

What Lorentz is saying is that there is a displacement in one of the reference frames (S₁) due to motion which has affected their mass in comparison to S₂ which does not suffer from motion and has no mass dilation. This assumes that different ‘reference frames’ exist. In reality they don’t. It also means that Lorentz believes in absolutes, i.e. absolute rest. This was noticed by Einstein who politely critiqued the theory by observing that its was ‘unsupported by the phenomena.’⁵

Lorentz the little sorcerer is basing his ‘mass dilation’ on the effects of electro-magnetism, akin to what can happen to electrons. Lodge the marketer for Fitzgerald, also sold Lorentz. Lodge alleged:

‘Atoms of matter are charged; and cohesion is a residual electric attraction. So when a block of matter is moving through the ether of space its cohesive forces across the line of motion are diminished, and consequently in that direction it expands, by an amount proportioned to the square of aberration magnitude. A light journey, to and fro, across the path of a relatively moving medium is slightly quicker than the same journey, to and fro, along.

But if the journeys are planned or set out on a block of matter, they do not remain quite the same when it is conveyed through space; the journey across the direction of motion becomes longer than the other journey, as we have just seen. And the extra distance compensates or neutralizes the extra speed; so that light takes the same time for both.’⁶

First, in Relativity nothing is at rest, so the entire premise of his contrived maths is wrong. The MM experiment was basically a form of gyroscope – it moved, so Lorentz’s equations are irrelevant. In fact, the genius of Michelson has been the basis for modern gyroscopes and Laser Ring technology. Michelson himself dismissed Lorentz (more below).

Second, none of this was or is proven. ‘Mass dilation’ cannot be observed directly by an observer in a ‘moving frame’, since the standard used to measure it, also contracts. But it could be observed indirectly. This was the objective of different renowned physicists who tried to observe the physical modifications entailed by motion: [e.g.,] variation of the refractive index of a refringent solid (Rayleigh and Brace); influence of the aether wind on a charged condenser (Trouton and Noble); the experiments of Trouton and Rankine and of Chase and Tomashek on the electrical resistance of moving objects; and finally of Wood, Tomlison and Essen on the frequency of the longitudinal vibration of a rod.

All of these experiments failed and were proved negative.⁷

Lastly, mass never dilates at 30 km per second ‘along its length’. This is nowhere near light speed. No experiment has tested ‘mass dilation’ at the ‘speed of light’. Basic physics will tell you that at close to light speed, mass will increase, not shrink.

Implications of a factless theory

Einstein ingested Lorentz whole except for the bones and joints around the aether and the implied kinetic energy of ‘space’. He removed these and refined the equations around moving objects with no absolutes. It was one thing to say that ‘rods shrank’ (or material pace Fitzgerald) as they moved through the aether with the Earth, even at the reasonably slow pace of 30 km / second. However, to be consistent, Lorentz understood that clocks running through the aether must also be affected and must therefore ‘tick’ more slowly by the same factor that made the rods shrink.

So, not only do we have the mythical shortening of matter along its length, never proven, never seen. We now must invoke a shortening of time commensurate with that non-existent mass reduction!

This means that time itself is ‘Relative’. This was used to explain why a light beam travelling through the aether in Michelson-Morley’s experiment reached its destination later then it should have. That is, the beam would have reached its destination much later than the beam traveling perpendicular to the Earth’s motion, which would cause significant fringe shifts to appear.

This is what passes for ‘Science’.⁸

Proofs?

The French mathematician Henri Poincaré showed through the laws of momentum that the mass of an object moving against the aether had to increase. Poincaré then had to revise Lorentz’s maths to fit into ‘Relativity’ and derived:

[(1 ‒ v²/c²)^½ ]1 ‒ n

This was used for clocks slowing in uniform motion. In the above equation ‘n’ was a variable that Poincaré used to explore the possibility that the transformations of electrodynamics might differ slightly from the strict Lorentz transformations. When n = 0, the equation reduces to the standard Lorentz factor used in special relativity.⁹ No proofs needed, just add some assumptions.

But no one knows what ‘n’ means. Lorentz admitted that the value of ‘n’ was ‘the origin of all our difficulties’ since there was no experimental data to verify its assumed value. Thanks for the clarity.

Not all physicists were so easily duped. From 1901-1903 Walter Kaufmann's experimental work determined that the charge-to-mass ratio of electrons at high speeds disproved Relativity and the above ‘transformations’. He repeated his efforts in 1905 and 1906 prompting Lorentz to write to Poincaré:

“Unfortunately my hypothesis of the flattening of electrons is in contradiction with Kaufmann’s results, and I must abandon it. I am, therefore, at the end of my Latin.”

Lorentz also whined that it appeared the Earth was indeed at the centre of the universe.

“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest, and the relative rays were the absolute rays.”^5,9

Poincaré replied:

“The principle of relativity thus does not appear to have the rigorous validity which one was tempted to attribute to it.”

Indeed. Falsified. So, Max Planck and others ‘adjusted’ Kaufman’s experiments to fit in with Relativity! ‘The Science’ and the adhibit of fraud? This is hardly a 'new’ phenomenon.¹⁰

In 1908 a physicist, Bucherer, performed a variation of Kaufmann’s experiment using Planck’s recalculated “k” values, which allowed it to agree more with the Lorentz-Einstein model. Planck’s partiality toward Einstein’s Special Relativity theory was not a secret, however.

“Planck presented the theory at the physics colloquium in Berlin during the winter semester 1905-6 and published a paper on it in 1906 (the first publication on relativity other than Einstein’s)…As editor of the prestigious journal Annalen der Physik, Planck saw to it that any paper on relativity meeting the normal standards would get published. According to Goldberg, Planck was attracted to relativity theory because of ‘his philosophical and ethical convictions about the ultimate laws of reality.”¹¹

That is the real way ‘The Science’ operates. Gatekeepers and their philosophies will filter what is accepted or rejected.

One physicist was more honest in assessing Bucherer’s ‘proof’:

“…theories of electron motion given earlier by Abraham and by Bucherer do give predictions considerably closer to the experimental results of Kaufmann. But Einstein refuses to let the ‘facts’ decide the matter.”¹²

Einstein always ignored the evidence.

The work of Guye and Lavanchy in 1916 also found systemic errors in Bucherer’s equipment, which was ‘an inadequate vacuum system’. In other words, this is another example of ‘The Science’ using fraud or if you want to be diplomatic, ‘inferential proof’ to justify its claims.

The Einstotle sharing laughs and insights with the kids at the academy. Admitting privately that he was part philosopher, part comedian.

Michelson demurs

Albert Michelson also didn’t buy into any of these theories or tortured ‘proofs’. For Michelson, the Lorentz solution was artificial, mainly because the so-called contraction was independent of the elastic property inherent in the interferometer itself, as in, for example, the resilience of a tennis ball returning to its original shape after it is struck. He writes of Lorentz’s proposal:

“Such a conclusion seems so improbable that one is inclined to return to the hypothesis of Fresnel and try to reconcile in some other way the ‘negative result’ [of the Michelson-Morley experiment].”¹³

Fresnel proposed that the aether drag on the Earth, made the measurement of its movement impossible. Fresnel could find no movement of this planet.

Lorentz also admitted that his theory was likely improbable. In 1904 he confesses:

“It need hardly be said that the present theory is put forward with all due reserve. Though it seems to me that it can account for all well- established facts, it leads to some consequences that cannot as yet be put to the test of experiment. One of these is that the result of Michelson’s experiment must remain negative…”¹⁴

MM’s experimental results were never negative. The measurements obtained detected on average, a 5 km / second movement, far below the 30 km / second motion of the Earth, meaning they picked up the aether wind.

Lorentz admitted that if MM’s results were positive his theory, and that of the Einstotle was bunk. So they are.

Bottom Line

The implications of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Einstein ‘transform’ still reverberates today through Einstein’s paradigm. Science may never recover and common-sense might never again be applied in cosmology or physics. This is why Einstein is called ‘Einstotle’, meaning a merger of Einstein with Aristotle.

In one of history’s major ironies, our ‘modern’ world uncritically follows a philosopher, named Einstein, purging dissidents and heretics. This was apparently a key criticism that the so-called ‘Enlightenment’ had against the medieval world – namely their devotion to Aristotle (which is entirely untrue and a nescient claim, but that is another story).

As we can see from the contrived mathematics outlined in this post, the entire corpus of Relativity has never been proven. In reality there is always an absolute. You can’t measure anything if an absolute does not exist, and this includes the fundamentals of physics; time, velocity, acceleration and deceleration.

We know that mass never dilates along a length, certainly not at 30 km/second. Mass will expand near to the speed of light. Lorentz’s equations are therefore junk.

Einstein picked up on Fitzgerald and Lorentz, removing the aether and any kinetic energy within space creating the non-existent ‘vacuum’ that offends common sense and physics. This became STR or ‘The Special Theory of Relativity’ in 1905. None of it was based on experimental observations.

STR was built to philosophically explain away the failed Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, premised on false assumptions and interpretations. This is unscientific.

All hail.

==

nb Lorentz the little wizard won the Nobel in 1902 for his theoretical support for the ‘Zeeman effect’, or splitting of spectral lines of atoms when subjected to a magnetic field. Pieter Zeeman experimentally proved the idea. Aided in the understanding of magnetism and light.

Sources and related content

¹ Archived in “Report of Activities of the Physical Society,” Nature, vol. XLVI (1891), p. 165, as cited in Dorothy Michelson Livingston, The Master of Light, p. 132.

² Oliver Lodge, “On the Present State of Knowledge of the Connection between Ether and Matter: A Historical Summary,” Nature, 46:164-165, 1892; emphasis added, cited in Holton’s Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, pp. 328, 364.

³ As reported to the Royal Society of London, Philosophical Transactions under the title “Aberration Problems,” vol. 184-A (1893), pp. 749-750.

⁴ H. A. Lorentz, “Michelson’s Interference Experiment,” in The Principle of Relativity, trans. by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the 1923 first edition, 1952, p. 7.

⁵Lorentz noted that the ether-fixed observer could interpret [c’ = u_r + v] as the ‘entrainment of the light waves by the ponderable matter’ (Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, pp. 19-20). Einstein called them “asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena,” in his 1905 Annalen der Physik article. In the end, Lorentz was forced to admit: “Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest, and the relative rays were the absolute rays” (ibid., p. 20). This admission is also never discussed in modern science.

⁶Oliver Lodge, The Ether of Space, p. 69. Elaboration of such themes can be found in ‘Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity Less Than that of Light’, in The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, 1952, p. 28.

⁷Joseph Levy, ‘How the Apparent Speed of Light Invariance Follows from Lorentz Contraction’1998, pp. 1-2. Lévy has also written: “Hidden Variables in Lorentz Transformation” (P. I. R. T., 1998) and “Some Important Questions Regarding Lorentz-Poincare’s Theory and Einstein’s Relativity” (P. I. R. T., 1996)

⁸Fitzgerald was the first to hypothesize length contraction in 1889, but Lorentz improved the concept and applied the mathematics. After Michelson had published the results of his first experiment in the American Journal of Science in 1881, Lorentz published its interpretation in 1886 (“Over den invloed, dien de beweging der aarde op de lichtverschijnselen uitoefent,” Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (Amsterdam); Afdeeling Natuurkunde, Verslagen en Mededeelingen 2 (1885-86): 297-372

⁹American physicist Herbert Ives wrote: “Lorentz arrived at his formulae by a process of invention and accretion; Poincaré arrived at his by giving Lorentz’s equations a mathematical going- over to make them fit his principle of relativity” (“Revisions of the Lorentz Transformations,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 95, no. 2, April, 1951, p. 131). The formula said that length (L) had to be multiplied by the square root of 1 minus the square of: the velocity of the object divided by the speed of light, L = L × 1 ‒ (v/c)².

In this formula, v = the speed of the Earth at 30 kilometers per second around the sun, while “c” is the speed of light in a vacuum, presently held at 299,792,459 meters per second. The resulting value in the Lorentz transformation is then 0.999999995 = L. In the original equations, [(1 ‒ v²/c²)^½ ]n + 1 was used for rods shortened when in uniform motion; [(1 ‒ v²/c²)^½ ]n was used for rods shortened in the direction of motion, and later, (See Ives, “Light Signals on Moving Bodies as Measured by Transported Rods and Clocks” Journal of the Optical Society of America, July 1937, vol. 27, p. 263)

¹⁰ Gerald Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, 1988, p. 206)

¹¹Stephen Brush, “Why Was Relativity Accepted?” p. 193

¹²Gerald Holton Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, pp. 206, 231, 253

¹³ A. Michelson, “Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether,” Amer. Jour. of Science, vol. III, June 1897, p. 478

¹⁴ “Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity Less Than that of Light,” in The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, 1952, p. 29).