Scales of critical attacks and remarks addressing the well-known theory of special relativity have recently acquired so imposing a scope that it is right to speak about an approaching crisis. Gradually to an increasing number of scientists, the numerous imperfections of this theory and the dead state of the scientific methodology introduced by it become apparent. Apparently, it is time to seriously upgrade STR and to subject it to corrective revision. With what is it necessary to begin?

In a rebuke to writers on STR, the fact was repeatedly put that they were really mathematicians rather than physicists. In building the theory, the formula of Lorentz‘s transformations already prevailed, and they tried “to adjust” reality to them. And as the selection had been initially made, all other alternatives “had been simply killed off and it had unwittingly blocked off a road to them. Thus, the deductive “mathematical” methodology prevailed.

Frankly, positivistic philosophical-methodological methods absolutizing the observer s position and denying availability of objective characteristics for natural subjects and other phenomena have also played a noxious role. Within the framework of a materialistic methodology, the situation when each of two observers moving past one another would fix alternative spatial and time reductions in the other system and thus would be right, never could be considered. The problem is natural to scientists gravitating to materialism in similar situations: and what takes place in these two systems actually? But instead of an answer, they here receive a positivistic-philosophical “fico”: it appears, there is nothing actually; there is only one subjective semblance of the phenomena which is taken as the scientific basis.

So, two essential methodological defects which STR promoted created the deadlock observed today. Therefore, it is necessary for us to subject a problem within a relativistic situation to more stringent methodological analysis in which the path to the correct solution can be found.

Earlier, in the article “Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects”, we have already identified that creators of STR have demonstrated scandalous tendentiousness in the consideration of specific space-time relativistic effects. They have preferred relative reductions of lengths and reducing periods as main effects, and the effect of a relativity of simultaneity has

been pushed into the second plan, and presented in the capacity of being dependent on the first two. For this reason they designedly did not deduce the value of mistiming of clocks, basing the last effect, on the thought experiment with Einstein’s train that would be quite natural and rather simple. Writers on STR have used this experiment qualitatively and the quantitative ratio was deduced later, after obtaining the formulas of Lorentz’s transformations for space and time coordinates.

The outcome of this tendentious approach was that the effect of the relativity of simultaneity found itself in the backyard of STR and the methodological specificity introduced by it has remained scantily studied. There was a fatal error in it as will be exhibited below. The specific features introduced by this effect in a methodological situation, appear so considerable, that it causes a radical change in the attitude towards the problem.

It is considered that the effect of the relativity of simultaneity s “mistiming” of clocks lays in points along the line of relative motion for two moving systems. Formulas for the value of this mistiming are deduced in STR. However the importance of some details of mistiming for physics, in our opinion reflected badly on the theory. In our preceding article we attempted more deeply to uncover this situation.

Actually, the question is that in any points removed from each other along the line of relative motion of two systems, there is a relative distortion and a relative displacement of the time scale. We shall pay attention to the relative displacement. Clearly, in one of the systems, all events happening at any point removed from the origin of coordinates for two systems will happen with relative forestalling, and in other, accordingly, with relative delay. The value of this displacement demonstrates dependence on the relative velocity of the systems and the distances between the points along the line of motion.

It is important to realize that the indicated displacement occurs along the trajectory at the same time, changing from point to point. The question is about a new total factor in our time-space perception, a role and value which is very important to evaluate correctly! This total factor essentially distorts our customary cognitive methods. It is necessary to strain our space-time imagination a little to understand it.

The special situation generated by the relativity of simultaneity

Earlier, we had already drawn attention to the unforeseen problem generated by the effect of the relativity of simultaneity. If we combine the space-time origins of coordinates of two systems at any point (O=O`) then in all remaining points of the line of their relative motion, the relative displacement of the time scale will occur. In outcome synchronize in two systems those events which happen instantaneously in point O=O ` can only. In particular, only the instantaneous values of the vector quantities present at this point can be compared. All remaining events appear with some relative time-shift, and this fact of relative forestalling/delay is necessary for the relative comparison of the two systems. Actually these two systems demonstrate essential relative nonlinearity. Events meet in one point and then change along the x axis.

So, with solitary instantaneous events all is simple enough. And how would it be with a simultaneous comparison of two and more events occurring at miscellaneous points in space? Here appears a major problem. The factor of relative forestalling/delay of events in miscellaneous points makes the act of such comparison impossible in principle! What does this imply?

The classical act of measurement of spatial parameters implies simultaneous matching of the ends of a measured object with marks on a template. Clearly, that the effect of a relativity of simultaneity makes such classical act of direct measurement in a relativistic situation when the subject and a template are in two systems moving past one another, essentially impossible. We must look into this problem in detail. So, it is methodologically impossible, impermissible, to compare space segments directly in two systems! We have the same problem concerning time increments. Their direct comparison is also methodologically incorrect. All this results in the fact that direct comparison of any processes consisting of two and more events becomes impossible. In particular, it concerns any motion along any non-zero spatial segment or during any non-zero period.

And now let’s recollect Michelson s experiment and the “strictly scientific” deduction of the well-known Lorentz’s transformations on the basis of its results. In light of the problems found by us, the expectation of experimenters and theoretical-geometrical calculations of the creators of STR look at best, naive or ridiculous. The methodology, with which they were guided, is completely impermissible. It in mechanics of Newton one could join simultaneous processes of motion of a boat and a river (in the classical example of traversing a fast river) in one spatial drawing or a graphic diagram, and then get the resultant velocity from a right triangle. In relativistic mechanics, all this is impermissible! There can be no direct comparisons of spatial segments, periods and processes of motion, especially on one linear diagram! No direct comparisons of vectors spreading in the space and time, of right triangles composed of them and simple formulas of transformations! Specific relative space-time nonlinearity of the worlds, of the parallel flows of a development of events in two systems causes us to refuse former primitive methodological methods and to search for others (probably, indirect) methods of comparison. Events occur in the special time proportions in each of two flows, and the arbitrary transfer, mixing of formulas, and values of variable data are completely impermissible in these flows.

So, the correct methodology of direct comparisons does not exist and cannot exist in principle.

What then do the formulas of Lorentz’s transformations offer us? Here, each of two moving experimenters independently (subjectively) makes a decision about what instants to consider as the beginning and the end of the act of measurement of a spatial segment or time period within the current process. But for all that, as it has been exhibited in our previous article, the solutions of the two experimenters contradict one another. Therefore it is no wonder that the results of such measurements are different. The situation where each experimenter considers that there are reductions of lengths of segments and periods in the other system is the effect of these subjective comparisons. Apparently, the cognitive value of similar comparisons and measurements is specifically subjective and comparable to the value of routine visual or acoustic illusions.

It is given that Lorentz’s transformations are deduced from biased (non-objective) methodology and concern only private subjective - illusionary aspects of reality. They do not suit the extraneous objective observer. Watching for the meaningless measurements of two experimenters moving past one another and knowing about the absence of a correct methodology for direct comparisons, this observer should come inevitably to the conclusion that it is necessary to deny any statement about such comparisons in principle. And in the causes of the illusions of relative reductions, he needs to put forward a progressing relative displacement of the time scale along the line of relative motion of two systems. Then the point at issue will vanish. Then the absurd and irritating paradoxes, over the last hundred years will vanish also. In total, all of special relativity will be reduced to the one indicated phenomenon. Contrasted to the former version, the new special relativity theory appreciably wins in simplicity; therefore there is every reason to call it Special Relativity Lite.

Last December (’05), physicists held the 23rd Solvay Conference in Brussels, Belgium. Amongst the many topics covered in the conference was the subject matter of string theory. This theory combines the apparently irreconcilable domains of quantum physics and relativity. David Gross a Nobel Laureate made some startling statements about the state of physics including: “We don’t know what we are talking about” whilst referring to string theory as well as “The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity.”

The Nobel Laureate is a heavyweight in this field having earned a prize for work on the strong nuclear force and he indicated that what is happening today is very similar to what happened at the 1911 Solvay meeting. Back then, radioactivity had recently been discovered and mass energy conservation was under assault because of its discovery. Quantum theory would be needed to solve these problems. Gross further commented that in 1911 “They were missing something absolutely fundamental,” as well as “we are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then.”

Coming from a scientist with establishment credentials this is a damning statement about the state of current theoretical models and most notably string theory. This theoretical model is a means by which physicists replace the more commonly known particles of particle physics with one dimensional objects which are known as strings. These bizarre objects were first detected in 1968 through the insight and work of Gabriele Veneziano who was trying to comprehend the strong nuclear force.

Whilst meditating on the strong nuclear force Veneziano detected a similarity between the Euler Beta Function, named for the famed mathematician Leonhard Euler, and the strong force. Applying the aforementioned Beta Function to the strong force he was able to validate a direct correlation between the two. Interestingly enough, no one knew why Euler’s Beta worked so well in mapping the strong nuclear force data. A proposed solution to this dilemma would follow a few years later.

Almost two years later (1970), the scientists Nambu, Nielsen and Susskind provided a mathematical description which described the physical phenomena of why Euler’s Beta served as a graphical outline for the strong nuclear force. By modeling the strong nuclear forces as one dimensional strings they were able to show why it all seemed to work so well. However, several troubling inconsistencies were immediately seen on the horizon. The new theory had attached to it many implications that were in direct violation of empirical analyses. In other words, routine experimentation did not back up the new theory.

Needless to say, physicists romantic fascination with string theory ended almost as fast as it had begun only to be resuscitated a few years later by another ‘discovery.’ The worker of the miraculous salvation of the sweet dreams of modern physicists was known as the graviton. This elementary particle allegedly communicates gravitational forces throughout the universe.

The graviton is of course a ‘hypothetical’ particle that appears in what are known as quantum gravity systems. Unfortunately, the graviton has never ever been detected; it is as previously indicated a ‘mythical’ particle that fills the mind of the theorist with dreams of golden Nobel Prizes and perhaps his or her name on the periodic table of elements.

But back to the historical record. In 1974, the scientists Schwarz, Scherk and Yoneya reexamined strings so that the textures or patterns of strings and their associated vibrational properties were connected to the aforementioned ‘graviton.’ As a result of these investigations was born what is now called ‘bosonic string theory’ which is the ‘in vogue’ version of this theory. Having both open and closed strings as well as many new important problems which gave rise to unforeseen instabilities.

These problematical instabilities leading to many new difficulties which render the previous thinking as confused as we were when we started this discussion. Of course this all started from undetectable gravitons which arise from other theories equally untenable and inexplicable and so on. Thus was born string theory which was hoped would provide a complete picture of the basic fundamental principles of the universe.

Scientists had believed that once the shortcomings of particle physics had been left behind by the adoption of the exotic string theory, that a grand unified theory of everything would be an easily ascertainable goal. However, what they could not anticipate is that the theory that they hoped would produce a theory of everything would leave them more confused and frustrated than they were before they departed from particle physics.

The end result of string theory is that we know less and less and are becoming more and more confused. Of course, the argument could be made that further investigations will yield more relevant data whereby we will tweak the model to an eventual perfecting of our understanding of it. Or perhaps ‘We don’t know what we are talking about.’

Theoretical cosmologists spend much of their time perfecting what is now known as the ‘Big Bang’ theory. This concept originates from ideas percolating in the minds of scientists, theologians and astronomers down through the ages. However, much of what they consider as proof for the ‘Big Bang’ is dependent upon uncontrolled experimentation that is molded to meet their expectations.

Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. This ancient description of the creation of the universe found in the Book of Genesis may be accurate after all. The big bang theory describes the beginning of the universe as having been precipitated from an infinitesimally small point. In this small volume, all matter and energy was concentrated until its contents exploded in either a smooth expansion or an incredibly violent energetic explosion that formed the planets, stars and galaxies. Originally this theory had competition from what is called the ’steady state’ theory whereby the universe is forever expanding and new matter and energy is created spontaneously within the space left by the receding galaxies. However, empirical observations have directed astronomers and scientists into the acceptance of the big bang model. But how did we get to this point in our understanding?

In the early part of the twentieth century the American astronomer Vesto Slipher and the German Carl Wirtz made some important astronomical discoveries. Using spectral analysis, Slipher deciphered the mixtures of gases contained in planetary atmospheres as well as nebulae. What distinguishes his findings is the discovery that most if not all galaxies outside of our own demonstrate what is called a ‘Red Shift.’ This shift is simply a change in the wavelength of the light emitted by those objects under investigation towards a longer wavelength. Wirtz similarly catalogued many red shifts of the nebulae which he chose to study. But it was still to early for them to realize the full potential meaning of their observations. That would wait until Einstein’s General Relativity would be interpreted by other scientists through further mathematical analysis.

His contemporaries demonstrated to Einstein that his new Theory of General Relativity published in 1916 was not compatible with a ’static’ universe of space time. The theory predicted an expanding or collapsing universe but not a fixed cosmos. Because he personally believed the universe to be an invariable space time continuum, Einstein engaged in a degree of scientific legerdemain. To correct what he perceived to be as ‘flaws’ in his theory he added the contrivance of a cosmological constant known as lambda to force the static universe into reality. Einstein’s view of perfection in an unchanging space time continuum had led him down a blind alley as much as Aristotle’s concept of perfection had brought that great philosopher into the error of believing in a static Earth at the center of the universe.

But even with the addition of the cosmological constant lambda, the universe was still found to be unstable and this whole affair would later be viewed by Einstein as his “greatest blunder.” His cosmological acrobatics behind him, Einstein yielded the stage to others for a clearer understanding of his own theory. It fell to Alexander Alexandrovich Friedmann to consider the consequences of General Relativity without the constant lambda interfering with his study of these relationships. In doing so, the Russian mathematician and cosmologist derived the solution which predicts an ever expanding cosmological structure (1922), a prediction which was disagreeable with Einstein’s concept of universal perfection. A couple of years later, Friedmann published his findings in “About the Possibility of a World with Constant Negative Curvature of Space.” But the entire hypothetical construct still lacked a complete verbalization mathematically and theoretically.

Enter the Reverend Father Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest from Belgium. Rev. Fr. Lemaitre provided the equations necessary to formulate the basis of Big Bang theory in his work entitled “Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom.” He postulated that the universe began as a primordial atom of infinitesimal volume and enormous mass energy as well as space and time and everything else comprising the future universe. At some point the universe began with the explosion of this super atom. Lemaitre published his theoretical ideas between the years 1927 and 1933 and speculated that the movement of the nebulae demonstrated the validity of the explosion of his cosmic super atom. Unfortunately, he also wrongly believed that cosmic rays might be an after effect of the super atom’s big bang. These are now known to be generated not from a universal conflagration but from galactic sources unrelated to the big bang.

However, the new theory still lacked a major source of observational support. This would be provided by Edwin Hubble’s observations of the redshift of galaxies. Taking up where Slipher and Wirtz left off, Hubble employed a novel technique to discern the properties of the galactic movements. By choosing to observe stars that are known as Cepheid Variables he could more accurately make measurements. Cepheids are a type of star that brighten and darken and lighten back up in regular periods of time that are well known. Cepheids that have identical cycle times of brightening darkening and brightening again also have identical or nearly identical luminosity. Thus, if one compares the length of the cycle to the amount of light apparent to the observer it is possible to accurately prepare an estimate of the distance to the cepheid.

In this manner, Hubble had found that the nebulae or galaxies exhibited a galactic red shift; in other words, that galaxies were receding away from ours at a speed which is correlated directly with the distance between our vantage point and the galaxy being studied. The further away the galaxies were the faster they appeared to be going in moving away from us. The results of these investigations is now known as Hubble’s Law. Essentially, this law states that universe is in an ever expanding mode whereby the intergalactic distances continue to grow without bound into infinity. Hubble’s Law depends upon the shifting of the wavelength of light and after having been delineated in 1929 has been subsequently proven over and over again. Further, Hubble’s constant has been recalculated to a more ‘perfect’ value and retains a great probability of being ‘recomputed’ in the future based upon new observations.

Thus, it should be clear to the reader that our scientists have a fateful habit of introducing their preconceived notions of beauty into their models. From Aristotle’s static Earth to Einstein’s greatest blunder, the constant which forces a static universe, we proceed only from the wisdom of our weak minds. The more things change the more things stay the same. Man’s hubris knows no limits in our attempts to understand things without the wisdom to comprehend its underlying meaning. Humble we are not. We are making the same mistakes we always have. Back to the future. To be continued…

Heralding a new age in the cosmos, Norwegian Kristian Birkeland predicted that the universe likely consisted of an exotic component that would later be called dark matter. His comments about this subject matter appeared in a description of the Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition (1902-1903). Birkeland’s ideas about the Expedition were published in the fateful year of 1913 which would see the rise of the socialist Federal Reserve System and the Income Tax in the United States of America, two key components of the communist manifesto. Evolutionary processes were in motion throughout all fields of endeavor. Economics, politics, science and the hearts and minds of men and women were in the balance whilst relativism not truth held sway over the modern imagination. Cosmology would suffer from the same ‘evolutionary’ mindset and Birkeland wrote as much:

“We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in “empty” space.”

In this fashion, Birkeland predicted that because of the ‘evolutions’ present within the cosmos most of the matter in the universe must be found in ‘empty’ space rather than that which is observable in stellar objects. It is currently believed that only four percent of the universe is of this ordinary visible stellar type. Further, about a quarter of the universe is made up of the ubiquitous dark matter with the rest of the cosmos being filled with the even more bizarre dark energy. It was Fritz Zwicky, a swiss astrophysicist working for Caltech, who would further the concept of dark matter through the aegis of the Virial Theorem.

This mathematical relation is a formula which bounds the energy of a set of particles. In another dark year in the steady evolution to slavery since 1933 saw the removal of gold from the accounts of american citizenry, Zwicky used the Virial Theorem in an attempt to ascertain the validity of the dark matter hypothesis. He focussed his attention on the Coma galactic cluster and his analysis provided prima facie confirmation for the existence of dark matter. By evaluating the amount of movement of those galaxies at the periphery of the cluster he was able to approximately surmise the aggregate of all the matter therein.

He was astonished to learn that this sum total of mass is different from a separately computed estimate. This other value was obtained by analyzing the sum total of galaxies and the brightness of the Coma cluster. Juxtaposing this value with the periphery computation he observed that there was a discrepancy of at a minimum four hundredfold. Since the galaxies were insufficiently massive to cause the computed orbital velocities there must be some other mechanism to explain this phenomena. This conundrum became in the scientific lexicon the missing mass problem. Zwicky had established the need for the existence of an invisible source of mass hitherto unknown which must provide the necessary gravitational effect for the cluster.

Thus, it is a fact of the current state of cosmology that the greatest set of evidence for dark matter comes from this galactic gravitational data. Scientists have even made galactic curves describing the rotational properties of stars versus the distance from the galactic center. When the gravitational data is plotted it can be shown that only a small portion of the observed speeds are explicable by classical computations. In other words, there is a scarcity of visible mass in the observed galaxies to attribute the sum total of gravitational effects to visibly observable stars planets and galaxies. Thus, the simplest way to explain this galactic mystery of insufficient mass is to hypothesize a non-detectable type of mass known as dark matter which can be the cause for the gravitational effects.

As more and more data is collected on these and other aspects of the universe, formulae and cosmological postulates are generated describing the results so obtained. Fulfilling the requirements of the aforementioned aspects leads some scientists to propose several different types of dark matter. The four main types of dark matter are called 1- baryonic dark matter; 2- warm dark matter; 3- cold dark matter and 4- hot dark matter. Dark matter ranges from the known to the predicted, from black holes to brown dwarfs to the massive compact halo objects (MACHOs), the neutrino, axions, WIMPS or weakly interacting massive particles and the esoteric neutralino. However, there is an alternative explanation for the gravitational effects which originally created the dark matter concept.

If an incomplete understanding of gravitation is factored into the picture, then it can be asserted that the dark matter interpretation is incorrect because some other cause is generating these phenomena. Several different contending theories have been developed to describe the observed galactic data. In particular, one of the main competing explanations is given by scalar tensor theories which try to combine the teachings of quantum mechanics with gravity. Amplifying these ideas leads to a variety of exotic ideas which challenge our most fundamental notions of physics and astronomy. Other concepts go even further and have been the subject of interest for astronomers like Dr. Riccardo Scarpa since these allow for a cosmology without the inclusion of the enigmatic dark matter.

Dr. Scarpa works at the European Southern Observatory in Santiago Chile using the Very Large Telescope Array at Paranal. With all of his experience in this field, it is interesting to note some of his most recent comments on the superfluous dark matter:

“Dark matter is the craziest idea we’ve ever had in astronomy. It can appear when you need it, it can do what you like, be distributed in any way you like. It is the fairy tale of astronomy.”

In view of these comments one should ask if another scientific idea might be on the verge of collapsing. Indeed, astronomers are routinely using these other theoretical principles on a daily basis in infrared observatories around the world. Thus, it is very likely that we are simply wrong about all of this dark matter. It is within all probability that the only dark matter that we will ever find is that ignorant dark matter between our ears.

Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects

(A Scandal in the “relativistic” family)

Ravil Kalmykov

The requirement of Einstein’s second postulate regarding constancy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames is a singular deviation from the canons of classical mechanics. It creates a basic distortion in the habitual representation of space and time. Persons beginning their study of special relativity, should be ready to experience a surprising metamorphosis.

However one of problems of science consists in the exceptional number of these novel theoretical representations. It is no secret that physicists-theorists are at times ready to bring down a huge cloud of new and absolutely mad hypotheses on heads of unsuspecting people. The problem facing the general scientific community in maintaining a healthy world outlook consists, whenever possible, in limiting the revolutionary aspirations of some of the excessively zealous authors with their novel and singular concepts, to a pragmatic and necessary minimum.

In opinion of the author of this article, not all is right with special relativity. They have obviously overdone the scale of novelty and have run counter to the requirements of the principle of necessity. One should try to find a more simple theoretical explanation, which is less bulky and less burdensome for the human mind.

Historically, the first idea that came to the minds of physicists was that in a condition of relative movement of inertial systems with near-light speeds, a transformation of space is inevitable. So the formulas of Lorentz’s transformations were born. However people have the right to question why it was decided to begin with spatial distortions and not with time? Apparently, the human mind is arranged to begin with something small, close and clear. Probably, changes in space are perceived to be easier than changes in time.

However, it turned out that transformations in space were not sufficient, and it was necessary to subject time to distortions as well. But what else distorts? According to the Lorentz transformations, a double change in time takes place: time intervals are reduced, and there is the phenomenon of “the relativity of simultaneity”. Thus, the initial “cautious” idea of transformation of space to which physicists have so amicably clung has generated a whole bouquet of shocking effects. We have a right to ask: what would be the result if we started with the other end? The author tries to prove below, that another theory leads to a result that is simple, has a minimum of novelty, and is more sparing of human credulity.

In stating the contents of special relativity one usually finds the relativity of simultaneity right at the beginning. But it has for some unknown reason only a qualitative character. The existence of this strange effect is only mentioned. The quantitative formula is deduced much later, after calculations of the reductions of space lengths and timepieces according to Lorentz’s transformations. As a result, it is given a “third-rate” dependency. After all of that, it is forgotten.

The author sees a basic mistake in this fact. He considers that value of this phenomenon is wrongly underestimated. Actually, it is the main thing (and as it will be shown below &ndash the only thing). Therefore it should be investigated first, and deeply. As to the concrete formula describing the phenomenon, it will be found in the thought experiment of Einstein’s train.

Direct derivation of the scale of infringement of simultaneity

This well-known experiment has a train, which we will consider as having a relativistic speed. There are two observers. One is in the middle of the train, the other &ndash at the station. All is organized in such a manner that during that moment when the observers are opposite each other, they simultaneously receive two light signals, emitting earlier from the two ends of the train. Each draws a conclusion about the ratio of the moments of emission of these signals.

With the observer who is in the middle of a train, all is simple: both signals have in his opinion, traveled identical distances (half the length of the train), and were received simultaneously. This means that he considers they were emitted simultaneously as well.

A more difficult situation exists with the observer at the station. First, he understands that during the moments of release of the signals, the middle of a train was some distance away from him. Thus, the head of the train was closer to him, than the tail. As a result, the light signal from the tail covered a greater distance and required a greater time interval. Hence, it should have been emitted earlier than from a head.

It is accepted that a qualitative conclusion of this situation that two simultaneous events in one reference system (train) are not at all simultaneous in another (station). That due to the fact that there was a mistiming of clocks in the two systems. But for some reason, this is not quantified. This is obviously the place to deduce a concrete quantitative ratio of the scale of infringement of simultaneity or the change in time rather than later, in the Lorentz’s transformations. Here, in our opinion, is an obvious deviation, from proper experiment. For a meticulous observer at the station, it would be natural to “take the bull by the horns” at once, and to try to deduce the required quantitative ratio.

A little about the nature of the relativity of simultaneity. Actually, it is a question of relative displacement (shift) of events of some interval of a time scale in the transition from one system to another. The size of this displacement depends on the position in space (along an axis of mutual motion of the systems). This displacement (we shall name it a discrepancy of events in time) leads to an interesting quantitative phenomenon.

The observer at the station wishes to calculate the size of the discrepancy using elementary improvised means, without the use of the Lorentz transformation formulas, but being guided by Einstein’s postulates. At the same time, our observer is so enamored with space that he does not wish to transform its characteristics without due cause. Station inspectors, as a rule, have plenty of time so time is no problem for them.

Let’s represent a situation at the moment of emission of a signal from the tail of the train in fig.1:

Fig. 1. Einstein’s train

Here O - position of the middle of a train; O?- position of the observer at station;

A - position of the head of the train; B &ndash position of the tail;

AB = l &ndash length of the train; BO = OA = ; V &ndash speed of the train.

The Signal from the tail should reach the observer at the station in the following time interval

= = = From here =

The time necessary for the arrival of the signal from the head of the train is calculated in a similar fashion.

(The moment of emission of the signal will be different, but the situation will be similar, therefore it is possible to use the same fig.1)

= = = It is received =

The difference between the two intervals is calculated easily

?t = &ndash = - = (1)

So, for the observer at the station that received the simultaneous arrival of the signals, the signal from the head should have been emitted before the signal from the tail of the size, ?t (1). From here, without resorting to a transformation of space, he reaches an elementary conclusion about mistiming of clocks (discrepancy of events) in two systems in any two points, A and B on the axis of their mutual motion. From formula (1) it is obvious that the size is proportional to the speed of relative motion of systems and the distance between the investigated points on the axis of motion, l.

Where is the mistake?

As we see, the observer’s result does not coincide with what ensues from Lorentz’s transformations. It is easier, and is not concerned with the deformation of space and time scales. Who is right?

Let’s remind ourselves that the transformation formulas were derived from an interpretation of Michelson’s experiment which showed that rays moving in different directions in a frame of reference were received simultaneously regardless of motion of the source.

Let’s recap this situation, remembering the relativity of simultaneity. In the system attached to the interferometer, the ray of light, having run over the course of the interferometer and having reflected back from a mirror, comes back to the initial point, the starting point.

In stationary system in which the interferometer is displaced, the event &ndash the light beam does not return to the starting point, but to another, because during the time of travel ?t of this beam, the interferometer itself was displaced in space by l = V t. An important result is found here. According to the relativity of simultaneity, in this other point the displacement (shift) of events takes place in the time scale. That is, the event at this point occurs earlier on the clocks of one system than on the clocks in another. In particular, when the process of movement in one system is already finished, it still continues in the other!

There is a very puzzling methodological problem: given these conditions, to broadcast events from one system to another. How can we carry out direct comparisons of space and time? There is a suspicion that physicists have given insufficient thought to this question. Really: except for one initial moment all events in two moving systems do not synchronize, and the size of the discrepancy is not constant, continuously progressing with the increase in relative displacement of the systems in space.

The serious analysis of this problem leads to a sad fact: it is impossible to reach a situation when the beginning and the end of any physical process is synchronized in both systems. One moment, only the beginning or the end ofa process can coincide. In Michelson’s experiment, only the beginning coincides. In Einstein’s train experiment, only the end coincides.

Let’s recollect that the analysis of Michelson’s experiment resulting in the Lorentz’s transformations were calculated from a simple right angled triangle. On the hypotenuse of this triangle, the transverse light beam in the system of the stationary observer moved (see fig.2,) in a continuous line). However the presence of a displacement (shift) of events on the time scale considerably complicates this situation. The return of a light beam in the moving system arrives earlier (point A). At this moment in the stationary system, the beam continues to run cheerfully on the hypotenuse (to point A’). At what moment should the stationary observer determine the length that has been traversed by a ray of light, and the time interval expended for it (at point O’ or point A ‘)?

Our poor stationary observer will certainly as himself this question: if the beginning of motion in both systems is synchronous, and the end is not, how dos this look to the moving observer? The stationary observer will want to try to diagram his version of the process in his own system, taking into account the displacement (see fig.2, a dotted line).

Fig. 2. Motion of the transverse beam in Michelson’s experiment

He will certainly not be enthused by the comparison of the two diagrams. In his opinion, the braking process in the direction of motion in moving system are obviously observed. And also acceleration takes place in the opposite direction, considering a change of sign V in the formula (1). In particular, in the mutual displacement of the two systems V ‘ there is a slowing down from the starting point. To the fixed observer, it is clear why it occurs:

, And in view of the discrepancy t ‘ = t + ?t, then

- From here is given the illusion of the delay of motion.

And with movement in the opposite direction, V changes to minus and the size ?t becomes a negative value (see the formula (1)), that generates the illusion of acceleration.

An uncomfortable conclusion inevitably follows from this situation. If it is impossible to determine the beginning and end of any process, the spatial positioning and timing of all its intermediate stages and all local events occurring in the framework of the two systems moving with near-light speed becom highly problematic. In this connection, that charming simplicity which authors of special relativity attribute to the Lorentz transformations is difficult to understand. Obviously, these transformations should be reconsidered. It is necessary to subject special relativity to serious modification. What will the occur to its well-known effects and paradoxes?

Problem of direct comparisons in details

Let’s try to consider a simple example from the very beginning, given theexistence of the relativity of simultaneity. In a classical example with a moving rod, we shall try to compare the results of measurement of its length by two researchers. In the system of the first researcher moving with the rod, the process of measurement is very simple: it is possible use a ruler and to note on it position at the ends of the rod. In system of the fixed researcher observing the rod moving at near-light speed, the situation is little bit more difficult. He must organize a special measuring experiment.

Experiment 1. The first researcher arranges flashes of light to occur simultaneously at two ends of therod. The second researcher must mark these flashes on a ruler, for example, by means of a photosensitive cover. For simplicity in the thought experiment, we shall assume that the rod travels very close to the ruler, therefore the delay between the moment of flash and the act of measurement can be neglected.

Fig.3. Experiment 1

The first researcher synchronizes time at the ends of the rod and creates simultaneous flashes. But the second researcher is indignant: in his system, the flashes were not simultaneous. That is, he registers a flash at one end of the rod, then after a pause, on the other. He quite reasonably considers result of experiment incorrect because during the pause the rod was essentially displaced in space. This ill-fated experiment shows a discrepancy of events at the ends of the spatially extended rod &ndash the result of the relativistic effect called by us, the - relativity of simultaneity.

So, experiment 1 is defective. Researchers agree to make it otherwise.

Experiment 2. Now the second researcher organizes a simultaneous flash of light along the in his system. For this purpose, he projects a large number of parallel rays of light from one source perpendicular to the motion of the rod. He needs only to mark the edges of the shadow of the moving rod on his ruler. Again, we consider that the rod moves vary close to the ruler of the second observer.

Fig.4. Experiment 2

The act of measurement is accomplished. But now the first researcher is indignant. He is disappointed that the rod in his system was not illuminated simultaneously along all its length. This is again the effect of the relativity of simultaneity: instead of simultaneous flashes it has turned into a kind ” moving flame”: first one end has been illuminated, and then the light beam has run speedily along the rod to other end. As a result, there was a time lag between the illumination of the two ends. If we consider that during this lag, the ruler of the second researcher was essentially displaced in space in relation to the rod. The result of the measurement, in the opinion of the first researcher, was incorrect. Again, the same discrepancy of events at the ends of the rod! It turns out, that a pause in the act of measurement as the result of the effect of the relativity of simultaneity is the cause.

What is the result? If we consider the situation correctly and take into account the relativity of simultaneity it is necessary to say that it is impossibe to simultaneous fix the ends of a rod in two systems at once. In systems moving relative each other it is impossible to directly compare lengths of the segments located along the line of motion.

Similar reasoning leads to the same conclusion with respect to time intervals. the discrepancy of events at makes it impossible to simultaneously determint the beginning and the end of a time interval in the two systems.

It would be reasonable to consider that nothing unusual occurs in the scale of space and a time in general. There is only the of displacement of events on the time scale. Thus, the basic impossibility of direct comparison of lengths of segments and time intervals forces us to radically change the attitude towards the Lorentz’s transformations equations and the well-known consequences of special relativity. Due consideration of the effect of the relativity of simultaneity leads us through necessity, not only to reconsider all former calculations, but also to cancel all other “relativistic” effects. For all these imaginary “reductions”, the paradox of “twins” and other amusing things it is sadly necessary to throw them out of the basket of history. In case of the “twins” all that happens is simply another is displacement on the time scale. When returning, the sign on the speed becomes negative, and displacement occurs in the opposite direction. As a result, there will be no difference in age when they meet.

So, the special theory of relativity reduces to only one phenomenon &ndash spatially caused displacement of events on the time scale.

It is the only new element to be brought into classical mechanics. Thus, the minimum requirement is reached. It is necessary to alter transformations for coordinates and time. There is a reason to avail oneself of the formula of the discrepancy of events, determined by us in the example of Einstein’s train. As the result of the new transformations, one system will determine:

x’ = x - t

Where = dx/dt ;

For the other system ,:

x = x’ - ‘t’

Where ‘ = dx’/dt’ Thus it is important to note, that = - ‘ only in the combined origin of coordinates of the two systems at the moment of intersection. Generally they are not equal.

In view of the change of direction of vector ‘ to the opposite in the second case, it is possible to write a scalar,

x = x’ + ‘t’

From the formulas in particular, it follows, that in the system moving in the other direction on axis X, events advance relatively, and in an opposite direction, they are delayed. And it is the sole effect which has a place in reality.

This situation may surprise some; some will be certainly upset or annoyed. The author perceives all this with a large degree of condescension because he considers this annoying misunderstanding only as one of the many problems in the methodology of physics in the XX century, mentioned earlier.

The new transformations open the gate for other methodologies and philosophies in physical research. Actually it is a question of refusing the current domination of neo-positivism in favour of materialism.

It is interesting to see how physicists will look to science fiction writers.

The concept of the invisible ether or ‘aether’ is an old concept dating to the time of the ancient Greeks. They considered the ether as that medium which permeated all of the universe and even believed the ether to be another element. Along with Earth, Wind, Fire and Water Aristotle proposed that the ether should be treated as the fifth element or quintessence; this term which literally means ‘fifth element’ has even survived down to the present day to explain an exotic form of ‘dark energy’ which is crucial in some cosmological models. These ideas spread throughout the world until the advent of a new springtime in scientific thought. The first person in the modern era to conceive of the idea of an underlying ether to support the movement of light waves was seventeenth century dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens.

Many others followed in expressing their opinions on the ether concept. Whilst Isaac Newton disagreed with Huygens wave theory he also wrote about the ‘aethereal medium’ although he expressed his consternation in not knowing what the aether was. Newton later renounced the ether theory because in his mind the infinite stationary ether would interrupt the motions of the enormous masses (the stars and planets) as they moved in space. This rejection was reinforced by some other problematical wave properties which were not explicable at the time; most notably, the production of a double image when light passes through certain translucent materials. This property of matter known as ‘birefringence’ was an important hurdle to be overcome for a proper understanding of the wave nature of light.

Some time later (1720) whilst working on other astronomical issues related to light and the cosmos, English scientist James Bradley made observations in hopes of quantifying a parallax. This effect is an apparent motion of foreground objects in comparison to those in the background. Whilst he was unable to discern this parallax effect he happened to reveal another effect which is prevalent in cosmological observations; this other effect is known as stellar aberration. Bradley was able to easily describe this aberration in terms of Newton’s particle theory of light. However, to do so in light of the wave or undulatory theory was difficult at best since to do so would have required a ‘motionless’ medium; the static nature of this ether concept was of course the property which had originally caused Newton’s denial of the idea.

But Newton’s acolytes would find themselves in a difficult position when it was shown that birefringence could be explained through another interpretation of the nature of light. If light was treated as being in a side to side action or ‘transverse motion’ then birefringence could be attributed to a light wave rather than the particle or corpuscular theory of Newton. This along with the detection of an interference effect for light by Thomas Young in 1801 renewed the ascendancy of the wave theory of light. These findings however carried with them all of the preconceived notions prevalent in the scientific mind. Since it was assumed that waves like water and sound waves required a medium of propagation, it was similarly assumed that light still needed a medium or ether for its waves to be transmitted across the universe.

However, further problems would afflict the ether theory. Because of the unique properties of a transverse wave it became apparent that this hypothetical explanation required the ether to be a solid. In response, Cauchy, Green and Stokes contributed theoretical and mathematical observations to an ‘entrainment’ hypothesis which later came to be known as the ‘ether drag’ concept. But nothing would give more impetus to these ideas than when James Clerk Maxwell’s equations (1870s) required the constancy of the speed of light (c). When the implications of Maxwell’s equations are worked out by physicists, it was understood that as a result of the need for a constant speed of light only one reference frame could meet this requirement under the teachings of Galilean Newtonian relativity. Therefore, scientists expected that there existed a unique absolute reference frame which would comply with this need; as a result, the ether would again be stationary.

As a consequence, by the late nineteenth century the aether was assumed to be an immovable rigid medium. However, earlier previous theories existed as to the nature of the aether. One of the most famous of these is known as the ‘aether drag’ hypothesis. In this concept, the aether is a special environment within which light moves. Also, this aether would be connected to all material objects and would move along with them. Measuring the speed of light in such a system would render a constant velocity for light no matter where one tested for light’s speed. This ‘aether drag’ idea originated in the aftermath of Francois Arago’s experiment which appeared to show the constancy of the speed of light. Arago believed that refractive indexes would change when measured at different times of the day or year as a result of stellar and earthly motion. In spite of his efforts, he did not notice any change in the refractive indexes so measured.

Many other experiments would follow; these were performed in order to find evidence of the aether in its many different abstractions. However the most important of these was conducted by american scientists Michelson and Morley. Their experiment considered another alleged effect of a different aether theory which came to be known as the aether wind. Since the aether permeated the entire universe, the earth would move within the ether as it spun on its axis and moved within the solar system about the sun. This movement of the earth with respect to the aether gave rise rise to the idea that it would be possible to detect an ‘ether wind’ which would be sensed because of the aforementioned movement. Thus, their experiment was essentially an attempt to detect the so-called ether wind. This mysterious zephyr would be nearly impossible to detect because the aether only infinitesimally affected the surrounding material world. Michelson first experimented in 1881 with a primitive version of his interferometer; a mechanism designed to measure the wave like properties of light. He would follow this by combining forces with Morley in the most famous ‘null’ experiment of physics.

In this investigation, Michelson utilized an improved version of his interferometer device. Michelson’s apparatus would help him win the Nobel prize for his optical precision instruments and the investigations carried out with them. His most important study being what became known as the Michelson Morley experiment of 1887. Michelson and Morley used a beam splitter made of a partially transparent mirror and two other mirrors arranged horizontally and vertically from a light source. When a beam of light traveled from a source of coherent light to the half-silvered mirror (the semitransparent mirror) it is transmitted to either of the horizontal or vertical mirrors. When the light returned to the eyepiece of an observer the separately returning light waves would combine destructively or constructively. This phenomenon is known as the interference effect for light. It was hoped that a shifting of the interference fringes from that which was normally predicted would be able to ascertain the existence of the aether wind.

To detect this effect, the Michelson interferometer was prepared in such a manner as to minimize any and all extraneous sources of experimental error. It was located in a lower level of a stone edifice to eliminate heat and oscillatory effects which might comprise the experimental results. Additionally, the interferometer was mounted atop a marble slab that was floated in a basin of mercury. This was so that the apparatus could be moved through a variety of positions with respect to the invisible ether. But despite their many preparations the experiment did not yield the expected fringe patterns. Thus, Michelson and Morley concluded that there was no evidence for the existence of the ether. Others would replicate the experiment in different incarnations which modified the premise of the experiment. Each and every one returning a similar negative result. Modern theorists have taken these results and those of many other experiments as being indicative of the non-existence of the aether. However, even the negative result of Michelson Morley has come in to question as far back as 1933.

In that year, Dayton Miller demonstrated the fact that even though the duo’s experiment had not specifically found the expected range of interference patterns, they had found an interesting little noticed effect. Miller then went on to suggest that Michelson Morley had found an experimental sine wave like set of data that correlated well with the predicted pattern of data. He also described how thermal and directional assumptions inherent in the experimental arrangement may have impacted badly on the fringe interference data. Thus, the test may have been performed in an imperfectly conceived experimental setup and with a built in mathematical bias against the detection of an appropriate outcome. Thus, in the future the aether theory in some form or another may still be sustainable as a foundational theory of physics.

Perhaps it is best to leave with these ideas as expressed in 1920 by Einstein who stated that he believed the ether theory to still be relevant to his ideas on space and time:

“More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether”

he continued:

“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”

and finally:

“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.”

Is Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity incompatible with the very equations upon which science’s greatest theory is built? New observations made by many scientists and engineers appear to contradict the great scientist’s ideas. Apparently there are implicit contradictions present within Relativity’s foundational ideas, documents and equations. One individual has even pointed that quotations from the 1905 document and Einstein’s contemporaries as well as interpretations of the Relativity equations clearly and concisely describe a confused and obviously erroneous theory. It is time therefore, for science to update its thinking on this theory with a comprehensive analysis of the history leading up to, during and after that revolutionary year of Special Relativity.

As this is the 100 year anniversary of the original release of Special Relativity, a review of the original assumptions, documents and ideas which led to the acceptance of this theory is timely and warranted. Every year millions of students are taught this theory without a critical analysis of Relativity. Relativity Theory consists of its two variants Special Relativity and General Relativity and is considered the cornerstone of modern physics.

Albert Einstein borrowed from the ideas of Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Voigt to create a new concept of the universe. His first work in this regard later came to be known as Special Relativity and contained many controversial ideas which today are considered axiomatic. Amongst these are Length Contraction, Time Dilation, the Twin Paradox and the equivalence of mass and energy summarized in the equation E=mc2.

This equation became the shining capstone of the new theory along with its first & second postulates, namely, that the laws of nature are the same from all perspectives and that the speed of light ‘c’ is constant in a vacuum regardless of perspective. Further, the theory also predicted an increase in mass with velocity. Numerous examples have been given of the ‘proof’ of the validity of Special Relativity.

Most notably, experiments using particle accelerators have sped particles to incredible velocities which apparently provide confirmation of Einstein’s theory. However, doubts remain in the scientific community who have never totally given up the comfort of a Newtonian world view. This is readily apparent in that they refer to the Newton’s ‘Law’ of Gravitation whilst Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) are given the polite attribution ‘The Theory of’ or simply SR ‘theory’ and GR ‘theory.’ Einstein would continue working on the ideas of Special Relativity until producing the aforementioned even more controversial treatise.

In his later more comprehensive work called the Theory of General Relativity (1916), Einstein proposed a major re-thinking of cosmology. He conceived of a space time continuum that is curved by mass; in other words, planets, stars, galaxies and other stellar objects cause a curvature of space time. The movement of these objects are determined by the aforementioned curvature.

As a result of these ideas, our understanding of geometry, math, physics, science and the universe would never be the same. However, some scientists are reporting that speed of light is not constant from different experimental observations. One has even reported errors in the fundamental equations. If so, this would require a major rethinking of the known cosmological models and assumptions of modern physics.