The 'Lorentz Transformation', the basis of 'Relativity' and its tautological, fantasy world.
The 'Relativity' wizards and salesmen. Don't like 'this Relativity'? No problem, we have a few Relativity products you can choose from. Or, we can just make things up.
Apostasy
Herbert Dingle, an apostate from the Church of Relativity correctly declared:
“Einstein’s special relativity theory…has nothing to do with time in the sense of “eternity”; it is concerned only with instants and durations… creating the illusion…that it has something to say…about the nature of “time,” of the continuum that St. Augustine and Kant and other philosophers have puzzled themselves about. In fact, time, the ever-rolling stream, has no more to do with the existence of clocks than with that of sausages, while time, in Einstein’s theory as in physics in general, means only clock-readings. It is because of this confusion that the “experimenters” have left relativity to the “mathematicians”…
They are accepted as such, without under-standing but with blind trust….It was Minkowski who later took the fatal step of introducing “eternity” into the theory…When once the distinction between eternity, instant and duration is recognized, the general literature of the subject of relativity is seen to be in utter confusion.
The writer, quite unaware that the word “time” has different meanings, unconsciously oscillates between them, and the reader, equally unconsciously, becomes the victim of one non sequitur after another, in which he can see no failure of reasoning but yet no possibility of making sense of the conclusion: thus is generated the illusion that relativity is incomprehensible to the ordinary mind….” (Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, pp. 134-136, 145).
Defending Relativity in a letter to Dingle, Max Born whined:
“The simple fact that all relations between space co-ordinates and time expressed by the Lorentz transformations can be represented geometrically by Minkowski diagrams should suffice to show that there can be no logical contradiction in the theory [of relativity].”
Nonsense. As Harold Nordenson observed, Einstein’s fallacy is, ‘the indiscriminate use of the word ‘time’ in two different meanings which makes his theory untenable from a logical point of view’ (Relativity, Time and Reality, 1969, p. 120).
Time, and abusing what time actually means, is a fundamental part of the magic show for the wizards of Relativity.
Wizards
In many posts we have discussed the Lorentz Transformation which is the basis of Relativity and was ushered into existence by the Dutchman Hendrik Lorentz after the failure of the 1887 Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment, to find the motion of the Earth. Of course Lorentz was awarded a Nobel Prize for saving the Copernican phenomena. His name and memory are now consumed by Einstotle, the holiest of the Saints within the Church of Scientism. Few have heard of the Dutchman.
Experiments with light and water have found no movement of this planet. The only way to explain this was to invoke ‘Relativity’, namely that an ‘observer’ on a moving body cannot calculate the movement or velocity of that body or object, in relationship to another moving body or object. This was the great saviour of Copernicanism. No Relativity, no Copernicanism, no Big noisy Banging.
What is it?
Lorentz arrived at his ‘transform’ equation and ‘Relativity’, using the Pythagorean theorem regarding a right triangle. It is straightforward.
Scenario: A light beam is traveling between point A and point B in one second (186.000 miles per second).
Point A --------------------->Point B
Point B, say a moving object, moves to the right, while the light from Point A is moving toward Point B. Since the path is now extended and longer, it should take more than one second to reach B:
Lorentz wanted to measure both the ‘time decrease’ and the ‘length increase’ as Point B (say an object) moved away from Point A (assume this is another moving object). This is easy enough to do by making a right angle between Point A and Point B.
C is the hypotenuse; v is the shorter line, and the vertical length is a. The Pythagorean theorem says that the square of c is equal to the square of a + the square of v. We can therefore walk through a transformation calculation, looking for the impact on a mass approaching the speed of light, namely its ‘contraction’.
This ‘contraction’ would mean that if I am on Point B (say the Earth) and I am moving away from Point A (say the Sun), the impact of speed on the mass of both myself, my measurement should distort my actual speed and even negate it. Mass and time are thus ‘transformed’.
In essence the manipulation of basic maths allows Relativists to reduce mass size as a function of velocity approaching the speed of light. This allows them to disregard the thousands of light and water experiments which find no movement of the Earth.
The obvious should be noted that there is nothing in the above ‘transformation’ which is ‘Scientific’. None of this was proven mechanically. It is simply contrived maths. Based on the Lorentz transformation a human, approaching the speed of light, would end up approximately 2 inches tall and 2 feet wide. Sure ‘Science’ if you say so.
The above manipulation of basic Pythagorean logic was readily accepted as ‘the’ answer to every single problem of motion in physics after 1887! This included the incorrect theory that no object could ever reach the speed of light. As the self-promoting, well-fed ego Galileo remarked, light is simply ‘instantaneous’ and cannot be measured. He was right.
Fantasy world
Relativists used the invariance of light speed to create ‘thought experiments’, not real-world experiments, which ‘proved’ how light distorts mass and time. Physicist, Copernican, and Einstein promoter Arthur Eddington summarises these ‘thought experiments’:
“It is no use trying to overtake a flash of light; however fast you go it is always traveling away from you at 186,000 miles a second….Let us take our favourite observer who travels at 161,000 miles a second and send him in pursuit of the flash of light. It is going 25,000 miles a second faster than he is; but that is not what he will report. Owing to the contraction of his standard scale his miles are only half-miles; owing to the slowing down of his clocks his seconds are double-seconds.
His measurement would therefore make the speed 100,000 miles a second (really half-miles per double-second). He makes a further mistake in synchronizing the clocks with which he records the velocity….This brings the speed up to 186,000 miles a second. From his own point of view the traveler is lagging hopelessly behind the light; he does not realize what a close race he is making of it, because his measuring appliances have been upset (Eddington, p. 54).
Welcome to the fantasy world of Relativity. The above explanation in various disguises is standard fare in textbooks and online apologies and worship of Relativity. It is junk science.
Pace Eddington, we have the observer as a ‘traveler’ coming close to the supposed (and disproven) invariance of light speed (how this would work in reality is never addressed, your head would explode). As he/she/it accelerates, the mass of the instruments shrinks with clock of measurement moving slower, due to the increase in velocity. This is pace, Eddington, however, a chimera. As the observer increases his speed it only appears that he/she/it is moving slower! It is the clock that is at fault, given its mass and functionality have shrunk and slowed.
This means that we cannot measure the mobility of the Earth as an observer in a non-ertial frame of reference. How convenient and what utter nonsense.
Illusionary
As given in the scenarios above, Relativity is an illusion. The Lorentz transformation is a model of ‘contraction’. To explain the effusion of confusion issued by Eddington, the Relativists need to invoke Lorentz’s mathematical fantasy world where:
‘The shortening of the moving rod is true, but it is not really true’ (ibid).
Is this what passes for ‘science’?
The rod, or any mass of any object, as it increases velocity and chases Galileo’s instantaneous burst of light, shrinks but not really. The clock of measurement and velocity shrinks but not really. This entire premise is simply to deny the outputs of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, where no motion was found of the Earth.
To this very day, no scientist in the world has ever explained, let alone proven, the precise physical reason why matter should shrink in length when it moves, or how time can dilate in the process, yet both are promoted as a ‘law’.
Hypocritical
It gets worse for ‘The Science’. The 1913 Sagnac and 1925 Michelson-Gale interferometer experiments that were designed to measure absolute rotation between the Earth and the universe. These also failed. The Lorentz transformation could not be used to salvage these failures, so Einsteinian transformation, or ‘Relativity’, was used. Within General Relativity, unlike the Lorentz transformation, a body is permitted to move faster than the speed of light.
Physicist Tom Bethell explains the wizardry:
‘‘Einstein knew of the experiment (Sagnac’s 1913 experiment), and in fact discussed it with Michelson in Chicago in 1921. He admired the “ingenious” way he overcame the difficulty “that we are not able to change the direction of the Earth’s rotation.” The Earth could not be rotated back, to see if the interference fringes had shifted during its rotation…..
But the Einsteinians were able to find an escape route, thereby protecting the special theory from falsification. SRT (special relativity) applies only to inertial reference frames, in which no unbalanced forces are allowed. But because Michelson-Gale depended on the Earth’s rotation, centrifugal forces and curvilinear paths are inevitably present. Therefore it was non-inertial.
A similar argument was used against the Sagnac experiment, in which the apparatus was rotated. The equations of special relativity cannot incorporate an acceleration even as small as the three thousandths of one-g experienced in Michelson Gale. But both the Sagnac and the Michelson-Gale results could be predicted using the complicated mathematics of general relativity. So the Einsteinians succeeded in turning the tables on their critics.
Instead of falsifying special relativity, these two experiments were construed as having confirmed general relativity. Petr Beckmann pointed out how unsatisfactory this was. The big difference between the ether-based explanation of Michelson-Gale, and GRT (general theory of relativity) was this: The classical explanation “follows from the Galilean principle of relativity in a few lines of high school algebra, whereas Einstein’s general theory does it with multidimensional complex tensors in space-time and non- Euclidean geodesics.”
There you have it, ‘The Science’.
If non-ertial frames of reference are used, don’t use STR, you must use GRT. The only way to prove GRT, which supports an ‘imponderable’ or near-to-mass-less aether, is to use the complexity of tensor calculus which is tautologically contrived to produce a dimensional model where space and time are merged, not in reality of course, but only in the maths (the next post will discuss this).
Michelson Morley in 1887, Sagnac in 1913 and Michelson-Gale in 1925, all disproved a moving Earth. No problems says, ‘The Science’. Special Relativity does not explain this but General Relativity can if we merge space and time! If you don’t like the ‘Special’ or ‘General’ versions of Relativity, the wizards also have the tried and tested ‘Lorentz’ Relativity or transformation of ‘mass reduction along its length’.
Tautologies
The assumption, never proven and very tautological, is that the Earth is a moving, spinning ball, and therefore experiments which are all done on the ‘surface of a moving, spinning ball’ are non-inertial and must use General Relativity. But how do I know the Earth is a moving, spinning ball if every mechanical experiment ever tried fails to prove this? It might well move, but we would like some proof.
STR which does not assume a ‘spinning ball’, cannot account for these failures. After all, STR is based on the Lorentz transformation which has never proven Relativity, and was only created to explain why Michelson-Morley could not find the Earth’s movement. Yet STR assumes a non-inertial reference frame! Thereby STR cannot explain the purported movement of the Earth whatsoever.
Further, GRT possesses an aether, which the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment (pace ‘The Science’) supposedly disproved (that is incorrect of course, this experiment found a not-null result when trying to measure the Earth’s motion), but the Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 proved existed and that it could be measured in its displacement! So here we have the 1887 proof of an immobile Earth, married with the 1925 proof of a measureable aether! Goodbye Relativity.
Wizards and incantations
Ah, but wait. The wizards have an answer. Einstein insisted that the aether of General Relativity was ‘not ponderable’, which means it has no discernible mass or presence. This means it cannot be weighed, examined, or mapped to Euclidean dimensions. The aether is there, but it is not. It is there as proven by Michelson-Gale in 1925, but it is not of enough mass to disprove STR, and not ‘ponderable’ enough to have an effect on the Michelson-Morley failure of 1887. How convenient.
This allows the Relativists to explain anything and everything.
The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 was headlined in the New York Times, on January 9, 1925, as proving an ‘Ether Drift’ but confirming General Relativity! This is absurd but exactly what one expects from Scientism.
If you can measure an aether drift, it negates both Special and General Relativity! How can you measure something that does not really exist or is ‘imponderable’, and without mass, according to the wizard Einstotle? This is akin to Einstotle’s claim that photons don’t have mass. Of course they do! Every molecule and particle must possess mass otherwise they don’t exist! This means that his equivalency theory of E = MC2 is wrong (and it is wrong).
The aether exists:
“The experimental hypothesis checks [for] the existence of such a material medium of a radiowave’s propagation…as ether is propagated in [an] eight millimeter radiowave range. The ethereal wind speed and this speed’s vertical gradient near the Earth’s surface have been measured. The systematic measurement results do not contradict the initial hypothesis rules, and can be considered as experimental… confirmation about the ether’s existence as a material medium in nature.” (Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” Spacetime and Substance, Vol. 2, No. 5 (10), 2001, p. 211)
Bottom Line
Entire books can and should be written on the nonsense that is Relativity. As with ‘Evolution’ and so many other domains within ‘The Science’, it is a magic show of models, word salads, long sentences and contrived explanations, the choice of what is deployed depending on the context of the question or proof.
We know that Lorentz’s mass reduction along its length as an object approaches the speed of light, is completely uncorroborated by reality. Special Relativity based on the Lorentz transformation, cannot explain Sagnac or Michelson-Gale’s failures to find a rotating and moving Earth. The wizards then trot out General Relativity with its opaque aether to explain the failures, which when one recognises that the aether is being measured and is very ‘ponderable’, tautologically disproves both General and Special Relativity.
All of these failures and apologia are then rebranded and repackaged as ‘The Science’, with the endless confident assertions that all is known and explained. Whatever your objection might be, the wizards will have a ‘Relativity’ theory adjusted to explain and save the phenomena. Consensus say. Teacher say. $cience say.
All hail.
Next post: the tautological error in Relativity’s tensor calculus, and Saint Stephen of Hawking’s admission that Relativity needs a complete rewrite.
Sources
Sir Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, from the 1927 Gifford Lectures, 1929, p. 54
“Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary?,” Proceedings of the NPA, Long Beach, California, 2010, p. 3. The story is also covered in Bethell’s book, Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary?, 2009, pp. 117-122
I am an amateur but haven't there been experiments in planes showing clocks slowing--or 'time dilation'?