Is Einstein's special relativity a masterpiece of genius, or one of infantilism?

I want to look first at Einstein's prediction that objects in motion undergo a length contraction in the direction of travel. As you already know, I contend that objects in motion undergo an extension in the direction of travel, rather than a contraction. Furthermore, I also contend that objects in motion do not only extend in the direction of their travel, but that they also undergo a contraction along the axis perpendicular to their direction of motion. Interestingly, Einstein had also thought about the the possibility of a secondary transformational process that may affect an object in motion, a transformation that might occur along the axis at right angles to the direction of travel, but he rejected that idea in the end. As far as I'm concerned I think that objects in motion must experience a two-fold transformational process, because that's the only way of providing a sensible explanation for the null result of the MM experiment while also paying a deserved attention to the better understood chapters in physics. Einstein, however, came to the conclusion that such two-fold process could not exist—and he used, naturally, a thought experiment to show why. The thought experiment he used is described below by one Professor at an American university.

Does the Fitzgerald Contraction Work Sideways?

The above discussion is based on Einstein’s prediction that objects moving at relativistic speed appear shrunken in their direction of motion. How do we know that they’re not shrunken in all three directions, i.e. moving objects maybe keep the same shape, but just get smaller? This can be seen not to be the case through a symmetry argument, also due to Einstein. Suppose two trains traveling at equal and opposite relativistic speeds, one north, one south, pass on parallel tracks. Suppose two passengers of equal height, one on each train, are standing leaning slightly out of open windows so that their noses should very lightly touch as they pass each other. Now, if N (the northbound passenger) sees S as shrunken in height, N’s nose will brush against S’s forehead, say, and N will feel S’s nose brush his chin. Afterwards, then, N will have a bruised chin (plus nose), S a bruised forehead (plus nose). But this is a perfectly symmetric problem, so S would say N had the bruised forehead, etc. They can both get off their trains at the next stations and get together to check out bruises. They must certainly be symmetrical! The only consistent symmetrical solution is given by asserting that neither sees the other to shrink in height (i.e. in the direction perpendicular to their relative motion), so that their noses touch each other. Therefore, the Lorentz contraction only operates in the direction of motion, objects get squashed but not shrunken.

Now, I want to tell you that every time I read this paragraph I experience a sudden jolt of laughter that begins somewhere inside my belly and ends somewhere between my brain and the inside of my skull. I cannot help it. So, that's how Einstein came to the conclusion that an object in motion can only experience a transformation along the axis parallel to its direction of motion. What do you think? Impressed, as Michael Fowler (author of the above) is?

Laughter aside, it is irritatingly obvious again that Einstein, and his followers alike, invoke the self-decreed right to consider one in motion as also being at rest, when one so desires, which is plainly just a dumb conjecture. At this point I'm no longer laughing—I'm fuming instead! Michael Fowler, for one reason or another, does not mention at all that the idea of considering oneself at rest when one is really moving is at work in Einstein's reasoning above. But no one should have much trouble seeing how it continues to be used, without any real justification or need, by those who refuse to believe that things are really much, much simpler than Einstein and his relativists are saying.

N, the northbound passenger, could only see S as shrunken in height if he considers himself as being at rest and S as being in motion. S, on the other hand, is equally entitled to consider himself at rest, and N in motion. Of course, this basically means that according to N, S is shorter, and that according to S, N is shorter! Sounds familiar? Of course it does! It is, after all, the same line of reasoning that has been routinely used by relativists for more than a hundred years. Remember the question posed by Herbert Dingle? “Whose clock is really running slower?” “Which twin is really younger?” “Who is really shorter, N or S?” Yeah, it's the same tune all over again, although in this case the paradox that normally arises in every case where SR is employed has been duly eliminated by Einstein's declaration that no other transformation, beside the Lorentzian contraction in the direction of travel, is experienced by an object in motion!

The most exasperating thing about the conventional SR, in general, and about those things that are involved in it, in particular, is the clarity and simplicity with which it can be proven that they are nothing more than grandiloquent, magniloquent, declamatory, flawed extensions of a positivist philosophy of dubious necessity or value in the physics of the 19th Century.

Let's use the example of the two trains that are travelling at equal relativistic speeds in opposite directions. Let's give those two trains a speed of c/2. Now, if N decides to consider his train as being at rest when the two trains pass each other, at what speed do N and S approach, and then depart each other? Conventional relativists are unequivocal about this: N and S pass each other at a speed of c/2. But what about if the two trains are on a collision course; what would be the total force, and damage, of their collision? Remember, there is a huge difference between the collision of a stationary object and one that travels at 100 km per hour, or two objects which are travelling at 100 km per hour each. So, how would a conventional relativist answer that question? Think, and think carefully, for the answer you'll give can readily show that the conventional belief that an object in motion can rightfully be also considered to be at rest is a terribly flawed inference . Think, and if you're convinced that the conventional relativistic understanding is correct, then you should have no problem at all answering such a straightforward question.

My view is that objects in motion are in motion, and that they cannot be therefore at rest, as well. Moreover, my view is that all objects in the Universe are ultimately moving relative to space. That also means that the conventional classifications of motion (uniform, non-uniform, relative, or absolute) are, at fundamental level, quite incidental to the big picture of reality. When I drive my Ferrari F430 on the motorway at 140 km per hour I am in motion not only relative to the road, or to the Earth's surface, but also to space (which, as I see it, permeates all universal matter). This view allows—indeed demands—that an object in motion is subject to the two-fold transformation I have mentioned before, and that the quantitative change an object is subjected to is directly determined by its own velocity relative to space. The two relativistic trains that travel at equal speeds in opposite directions, then, will undergo identical transformations, and that also predicts that N and S will shrink in height by exactly the same amount. Compare this explanation now with the conventional one, and think thereafter which of the two is more credible—nay, more desirable.

There's just one other thing I want to say, for now. The transformational extension of an object in its direction of motion that I propose should, without much effort, be seen to make a lot of sense. Indeed it can become a 'visualisable' effect. But, even more importantly, the extension I proposed explains so beautifully why clocks in motion do indeed tick slower than those at rest. And that is no mean achievement, as you should have already realised.

I am not an anti-relativist. On the contrary, as I already said in one of my earlier pages, as far as I know I am the most fundamentalist contemporary relativist in the world. But that's another story, for another time. For now I want to tell you, if there's really a need to, that what I am an anti of is the Einsteinian breed of relativists, who have managed to halt any progress in physics for over one hundred years. In the last few pages before this one I discussed (albeit rather briefly and somewhat erratically) some of the main issues in the Einsteinian relativistic philosophy that have been fooling able minds since 1905. I wrote those pages with a mixture of a certain premeditation and a particular hope, for what I was offering was not for everyone. But that's, again, another matter.

Many years ago I read somewhere a long debate between Bertrand Russell and the Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe, about the arguments for and against a possible existence of a god. Both men, well educated, engaged in a vigorous dispute in which they threw against each other a panoply of -isms (decorated with an intimidating array of academic jargon) that stretched the limits of most dictionaries. Patiently, I managed in the end to decipher the debate, only to realise that beside the big words there was nothing impressive in what the two men had said. On the contrary, when stripped of their pompous camouflage the arguments of both men were not even ordinary--they were lame. Now, the story of SR is very much in the same mould, and for those able to see beyond the barriers erected by conventionality and dogma what I have written before, and what I shall write henceforth, will be proof of that.

SR is so simple that at the University of Virginia Prof. Michael Fowler only needs a lecture a couple of pages long to teach his first year students the gist of the theory. He starts by explaining in a few words the "Galilean relativity", and then he mentions Newton's Laws of Motion. Next he joins the two into what basically is the principle of relativity, which stipulates that the laws of physics are the same in either a uniformly moving frame of reference or in a frame of reference at rest. Following that he explains how from Newton's First Law of Motion arises the principle of inertia, and how by combining next the principle of relativity with the principle of inertia the concept of an inertial frame of reference is born. Next Mr. Fowler mentions the findings of the Michelson-Morley experiment (according to which there is not such thing as a frame of reference at absolute rest) and Maxwell's equations (which describe the electromagnetic fields and the propagation of light), which he follows with the paragraphs below:

We now come to Einstein’s major insight: the Theory of Special Relativity. It is deceptively simple. Einstein first dusted off Galileo’s discussion of experiments below decks on a uniformly moving ship, and restated it as : The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial Frames. Einstein then simply brought this up to date, by pointing out that the Laws of Physics must now include Maxwell’s equations describing electric and magnetic fields as well as Newton’s laws describing motion of masses under gravity and other forces.

Demanding that Maxwell’s equations be satisfied in all inertial frames has one major consequence as far as we are concerned. As we stated above, Maxwell’s equations give the speed of light to be 3×10^8 meters per second. Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 3×10^8 meters per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 3×10^8 meters per second.

And so, with the two short paragraphs above Mr. Fowler has basically laid down on the table the theoretical skeleton of SR. The rest of this introductory lecture contains two more little chapters. The first is called "You really can't tell you're moving!", of which I'll cite the first paragraph:

Just as Galileo had asserted that observing gnats, fish and dripping bottles, throwing things and generally jumping around would not help you to find out if you were in a room at rest or moving at a steady velocity, Einstein added that no kind of observation at all, even measuring the speed of light across your room to any accuracy you like, would help find out if your room was “really at rest”. This implies, of course, that the concept of being “at rest” is meaningless.

Then, finally, there's a last little chapter called "Truth and consequences", which apart from the paragraph below contains a thought experiment of the Einsteinian kind. I will not say anything about this particular thought experiment because the drawing below (which is almost a mirror-image of Fowler's original drawing) is quite sufficiently qualified for my purpose.

The Truth we are referring to here is the seemingly innocuous and plausible sounding statement that all inertial frames are as good as each other—the laws of physics are the same in all of them—and so the speed of light is the same in all of them. As we shall soon see, this Special Theory of Relativity has some surprising consequences, which reveal themselves most dramatically when things are moving at relative speeds comparable to the speed of light. Einstein liked to explain his theory using what he called “thought experiments” involving trains and other kinds of transportation moving at these speeds (technically unachievable so far!), and we shall follow his general approach.

The lecture ends with the following:

(Note: actually the picture above is not quite the way it would really look. As we shall find, objects moving at relativistic speeds are contracted, and this combined with the different times light takes to reach the eye from different parts of the ship would change the ship’s appearance. But this does not affect the validity of the statements above.)

In May 1999, at Bologna in Italy, an international conference was convened with the scope of discussing the critical views of those opposing the two theories of relativity. (Although GR was discussed too, by far the majority of criticism was directed at SR.) Following that event an Italian mathematician by the name of Umberto Bartocci (who had been one of the six members in the Scientific Committee of the conference) wrote a quick paper for the "Proceedings" (with the title "Most common misunderstandings about Special Relativity") and sent it to a number of physicists known to be anti-relativists. Furthermore, he asked every one of those anti-relativists to name their best argument ("whether experimental, or theoretical, or logical, or mathematical") against relativity. Most of those contacted replied to Bartocci's request, and their answers can be found on this page. As far as I'm concerned this page is one of the most eloquent examples of what is wrong not only with SR, but what is also wrong with the criticism of those who are against it. Now I hope that you'll read everything that page contains on your own , for I can neither cite it here in its entirety, nor do I intend to discuss its content at any great length. Nevertheless, I will cite from it below part of an answer offered by one particular physicist, for reasons that I shall reveal a little later.

The usual relativistic methodology is this: Two observers, each in its own frame of reference, moving at relative velocity V, observe a "common" phenomenon, (event, force, speed, time interval, etc). Now, it is crucial for SRT to distinguish between the PROPER frame and the NON-PROPER one. The Lorentz transformation is simply a recipe to go from some given PROPER values to the NON-PROPER values in the other frame. Or vice versa, given the NON-PROPER values, to get the PROPER ones. In such a method the WHOLE PHENOMENON to be measured, observed, studied, etc, must be contained in the PROPER FRAME. For example, the force between TWO static charges. They only show a Coulomb force in the PROPER FRAME. Then, when "seen" from the NON-PROPER frame at velocity V, a new Lorentz transformation term arises which SRT interprets as the "magnetic field B". Another example: the PROPER observer measures a time or a length interval in his frame. Then the NON-PROPER observer applies the Lorentz equations and gets the NON-PROPER values, which happen to be dilated, or contracted respect the PROPER values. But the interval is COMPLETED in the PROPER FRAME. Its beginning and its end are both, PROPER events in THAT frame. Likewise, the beginning and end are, both, non-proper events in the other frame. Einstein himself, in the "thought-experiment" whereby he "deduced" the Lorentz transformation by synchronizing two distant clocks, followed this method at the beginning of his 1905 paper. The events were: 1-emission from clock A; 2-reflection at clock B; 3-final reception at clock A. But all three clocks are stationary in the PROPER frame. And, therefore, they both are "moving" from the viewpoint of the NON-PROPER frame. Well, if we agree that the previous description is the orthodox METHOD to be used by SRT, then it happens that, the way Einstein applied SRT to the Doppler (and aberration) phenomena in Section 7 of his paper, CONTRADICTS the previous methodology he himself started. Why? Because in this case the beginning of the event, (emission of light) and the end, (reception of light) are placed in DIFFERENT frames of reference, moving at relative speed V. So there is no way to apply the crucial concepts of PROPER and NON-PROPER frames. In reality, Einstein MIXED-UP the two frames. He allowed the phenomenon of light propagation to CROSS OVER from one frame to the other. I know that most authors and popularizers of SRT do the same thing. They even allow "information" to be exchanged from one frame to the other; or a third observer to "jump" from one to the other. That is absurd. The only communication possible between the two frames is, precisely, the LORENTZ equations. That is why all experiments designed to "test" SRT and which rely on light signals to be exchanged between "moving" and "non-moving" frames, is a futile endeavor. And this is the case of the Doppler (and aberration) theories in SRT. To be consistent with his original methodology, (the one whereby he DEDUCED the Lorentz equations in Sections 2 and 3 of his paper), Einstein SHOULD HAVE placed the emitter and receiver of light, BOTH stationary in one frame. And then, analyze what happens from the NON-PROMER (sic) frame, for which both emitter and receiver would be "moving". But of course, if emitter and receiver are relatively stationary then there would be no net observable Doppler, nor any net observable aberration at all. Alternatively, Einstein could put the emitter and the receiver in the SAME frame, specifying that the receiver is moving relatively to the emitter. But then he had to admit the classical equation for the Doppler and aberration effects, and "transform" it to a non-proper frame in which,both the emitter and the receiver have an additional relative velocity V. He might get the extra beta factor, typical of SRT, but he could not explain neither Doppler nor aberration in this way without the classical beginnings. As O'Rahilly says, Einsteins procedure is unnecessary, showing nothing new. His added beta factor cannot be tested experimentally. It depends on what an "imaginary" observer might see when compared to the real observer in our laboratory. It is sheer phantasy. (Francisco J. Muller)

I've been looking at people talking for more than fifty years now, and with time I began to see a certain pattern that was illustrative of all talks. The pattern I have seen looks, to my mind's eye, like a typical target at a shooting range after many shots have been fired at it. When I listen to a group of people discussing a particular subject in my mind I give each answer or opinion a numerical score and I place it on my imaginary target where it relevantly belongs. What I have learned over the years is that the typical pattern that characterises the vast majority of "people talking" cases is that of a target where the relevancy distribution of the shots is the one instinctively predicted, and expected, by the common sense. In effect, the distribution of shots on my imaginary target invariably increases in number from the centre outwards. Now, this kind of pattern may indeed be "instinctively predicted and expected by the common sense" (and it may therefore not surprise the majority), but I can tell you that in spite of its commonality it does manage to fool a minority of us into believing that "the common pattern" I'm talking about is only commonly common. If you have read everything written on the web page I mentioned, you should be able to see that the common pattern in question is certainly not only commonly common, though.

To my mind, there are many wrong things with SR, but in the end all those many things are incidental to two fundamental flaws in the theory. Unsurprisingly, however, in spite of the fact that virtually not one of the many 'shots' fired by the 24 professionals that had been challenged by Umberto Bartocci missed the SR target, the two fundamental flaws that are at the centre of the theory have not been 'hit' by any of them. Only one shot grazed 'the bull's eye', a shot fired by Francisco J. Muller (whom I cited above), with another (which I won't mention) striking the target at a point just a bit further out than it.

One of the fundamental errors at the core of SR is well known. It is present in every exposition of SR, and in Fowler's lecture you'll find it behind the first half of the caption in the drawing with the spaceship:“The speed of the same blip of light is measured by two observers, having relative speed c/2”. This sentence ultimately allows the observer in the spaceship to choose to be, at any point in time, either in motion (where he travels at a velocity of c/2 relative to the observer on the ground), or at rest (where the observer on the ground travels at a velocity of c/2 relative to him). This flaw in SR has been discussed extensively since 1905, most notably by Herbert Dingle in his Science at crossroads. It is a perverse idea, pushed forward with the cheek of a con man, or with that of a bully in the schoolyard. You can see the cheek with which this stupid idea is thrown in the face of the opposition even in the introductory lecture to SR at Virginia University:"This implies, of course, that the concept of being “at rest” is meaningless".

There aren't many things that we know with certainty in physics, but this one we do: no object in the Universe is at rest. The only thing that could be at rest, by definition, is space itself. Everything else is in motion, whether that motion is relative to other objects or to space itself. Every object, in fact, is in a specific state of motion, meaning uncompromisingly that it travels at its own inherent velocity from one place in the Universe (whether spatially or relatively defined) to another place in the Universe (whether that place is spatially or relatively defined). The only physical entity that could genuinely be at rest is space itself, and no material object will ever be at rest relative to space. Furthermore, since every object in the Universe is in a particular state of motion, it naturally follows that the relative state of motion between any two objects can only be determined by the specific result of their combined velocities. There is no room for compromise in this, and therefore any line of reasoning that leads to a different result is nothing but flawed. To see that such is indeed the case you don't even have to force your brain to go beyond the boundaries imposed by the SR itself. Alas, the relativists of the Einsteinian kind have too much to loose if they are proven wrong, and they are terrified by that thought, make no mistake about it. Alas alas, the reign of the conventional establishment of relativists in our present time is poignantly aided by the opposition too, because its members--by and large--are strictly driven by their own vested interests, and are thus easily defeated. Not by being engaged, but by being ignored.

The other fundamental error is much less known, if at all. I'm saying this because I, for one, have never seen it described anywhere (especially not in one sentence, as it should). The closest description I could find of this fundamental flaw in SR is the one I've already mentioned--that of Francisco Muller in response to Mr. Bartocci.

By the way, what did you think of it? I want to tell you that when I found it, only a few months ago, I was shocked and relieved at the same time. Shocked because it was the first time when I came across an idea that was, in principle, identical to my main argument against SR. Relieved because I am smart enough to imagine that there could always be a possibility that something may so subtle be that not even my mind could see through it. Fortunately, you know, if I have a god-given talent of any significant kind is that that I innately am a perennial sceptic. Which is a healthy counterbalance for my god-given belief that I could explain pretty much everything I have learned about from my journey into the science of physics. What I have learned from that journey, as well, is that no amount of mental ability and no number of academic titles is enough to teach one how to look for the truth. Indeed I have seen so many stupidities uttered by seemingly brilliant minds that this is no longer, as far as I am concerned, an aberration that should be excused. But the most impactful thing that I've become aware of in my journey was the fact that the more I learned about the mainstream understanding of reality, the more I found myself at loggerheads with the conventional wisdom. And let me warn those who do not know it yet, to find yourself against the beliefs of the many carries a pain that is much harder to mitigate than it has been historically glamorised. When I came to see, for example, the mathematical reasoning behind the Michelson-Morley experiment in a such a radically different light than how all those great minds of the time (Lorentz's, Fitzgerald's, Planck's, and others') were seeing it, I opened--for myself, not for anybody else--a Pandora's box that contained a seemingly unending number of torturing methods and tools. Now, more than 20 years later, I still believe in my own reasoning, but in all this time no one has ever asked me if I have ever had any doubts about its validity, or how many times I had to chew on it before accepting it in full. If you were to ask me some question of the kind I'd have to tell you that I had so many doubts about the validity of my own reasoning that the last one took place only one or two hours ago, if you know what I mean. No, believe me that there's no joy at all in finding yourself against the majority, not even if you knew that you are absolutely right! (If you doubt my saying so think about the story of Jesus, or that of Giordano Bruno, or even of van Gogh's.)

Getting back to my view of SR, if Bartocci asked me to present my best argument against the theory I would say something like this. SR is a theory that was conceived with the scope of resolving two issues that were perceived as being imperative at the time. One of those was the result of the M-M experiment, regardless of what Einstein said about that. The other was the apparently natural desire to include the newly equations of light discovered by Maxwell into the greater framework of physics, of which the systems travelling uniformly in a straight line formed, in principle, one half of physics. Now this second scope of SR is specified by Fowler in his lecture, and even though it isn't discussed in detail there, there is enough said to enable any thinking mind to ask certain questions--which, nevertheless, I have never seen asked (even though Fowler has dedicated ample space for specific questions his students might have for him after each lecture). In fact, even if one were to read only the paragraphs form Fowler's lecture that I cited earlier, one should not fail to see where Einstein made a fundamental blunder in implementing what his theory was designed to achieve. To see that (gargantuan, by the way) blunder of Einstein follow me carefully in this line of reasoning.

SR begins at the point where Einstein expands Galileo's principle of relativity, which was basically stating that the known laws of physics appear to be the same not only in a frame of reference that is at rest, but also in a frame of reference that is moving uniformly in a straight line. Now, if you are aware on what basis, and how, Galileo explained the principle of relativity then you should have no problem at all understanding what an inertial frame of reference is and what relativity is all about. Of course, personally I will assume that you know all this, and thus I will proceed to the next point in my line of reasoning.

So, Einstein's expanded principle of relativity asserted that apart from Newton's Laws of Motion and the laws of gravity, there ought to be another law that should remain the same in all inertial frames: the law that the speed of light should have the same value in all those cases. Surprising? Hardly. After all, if one measured the speed of light in a particular frame of reference and if one were to find a different value for it, then the whole principle of relativity would have to be discarded--for the simple reason that one then could thus establish that one is in motion, not at rest. Now, since it appeared completely impossible to conduct any sort of experiment, in any inertial frame of reference, that could reveal whether everything inside that frame of reference was in motion or at rest, Einstein's proposals (which formed, in fact, the two axioms at the foundations of SR) seemed highly plausible and quite warranted. In the words of Michael Fowler: The Truth we are referring to here is the seemingly innocuous and plausible sounding statement that all inertial frames are as good as each other—the laws of physics are the same in all of them—and so the speed of light is the same in all of them. "So why then this century-long fight against SR?" one should rightfully ask. "What", should one ask again, "could have gone wrong with a theory whose internal reasoning looked so sound, logically, and so plausible, physically?"(At this point I would love to hear the whisper of your thoughts, but since I can't I'll simply have to ask you the following question: "Can you answer one's questions?" Take your time and think, before going any further.)

You know what infuriates me most in the usual array of answers provided by the defenders of Einstein's SR? Statements like this: "There are no mathematical contradictions in SR, which is quite a coherent theory". (Umberto Bertocci)

Now Mr. Bertocci is a mathematician, a Professor at a major Italian University, and a self-declared researcher in relativity for more than twenty years. Alas, for all that, in my eyes he is well below par as a thinker, and in a moment I will tell you why I see the man as such. Before that, however, let me give you another example of a declaration that gets my blood boiling:

In conclusion, I (Umberto Bartocci, m.n.) completely agree with Del Larson’s and McCarthy’s opinions below:

"If we try to come up with theoretical arguments to show how special relativity is wrong, we will lose. SR has been studied and celebrated for generations now. If there was a theoretical flaw it would have been found long ago ... from a mathematical (and therefore theoretical) sense, special relativity is completely consistent and correct. Arguing that point merely shows a misunderstanding of the theory".

How short is the vision of zealots... Anyway, that's all I wanted to say before answering one's questions above.

The major, fundamental, flaw in Einstein's first theory of relativity is the blatantly erroneous manner with which he implemented within Galileo's perfectly sound principle of relativity Maxwell's equations. Now, my advice is to read this last sentence once more and then to scroll above and read the paragraph I cited from the answer given by Francisco J. Muller to Mr. Bartocci. In the meantime I will wait patiently for you to see if your vision will still be too short to enable you to get a glimpse of the picture of relativity that lies beyond the one erected by Einstein's zealots.

Remember the rather poetic description that Galileo used to describe the principle of relativity? Remember how well you understood what he meant? Remember that most important caveat that is an absolute requirement in order for the claim that "the laws of physics should be the same in a frame of reference that is moving uniformly in a straight line as they are in a frame of reference at rest? Remember that the veracity of that claim was strictly conditioned by the observer's inability (or non-desire, if you like it more) to use as a point of reference any object that is NOT a part of the observer's own frame of reference? Did you understand why that condition was an absolute requirement of any object within which the principle of relativity (with its slogan that "the laws of physics are the same here, whether we are uniformly moving, or at rest") could hold true? OK, if you do remember and understand all those things let me ask you once again then: Can you see, now, the fundamental error made by Einstein (and swallowed by his numerous zealots since)?

There is nothing wrong in Einstein's claim that the speed of light measured by an observer in an inertial frame should be exactly the same as the speed of light that is measured by all possible observers in all conceivable inertial frames, as long as the particular source of light used in each measurement is uncompromisingly located within the particular inertial frame where each particular measurement is conducted! Can you understand the logic behind this condition? You should, because it is so damn clear, so simple, and so logically healthy!

Now, consider the Einsteinian version of that condition, and you should easily see why--for instance--the twins' tale in SR becomes a paradox as soon as the sources of light at the core of the story are NOT integral parts of each twin's particular frame of reference. The mistake made by Einstein (and swallowed without a flinch by his so many followers) is not minuscule (and therefore somewhat forgivable); on the contrary, Einstein's mistake is enormous, gigantic, and thus it is totally beyond forgiveness! It is also either one of the most stupid mistake a rational mind could ever commit, or a superlatively infantile one that could ever be conceived by a matured thinker. (I'll leave that decision to you.) As a final note on this subject I should say that if I were asked to describe the mistake I've been talking about in a language comparable with that used by Galileo in his description of the principle of relativity I would probably say that what Einstein did in SR is analogous to claiming that the fish that were swimming in their bowl of water unimpeded and without any noticeable restriction, should just as easily swim in a container that were continuously refilled with seawater that is coming from outside through a trough of some kind!

There are many wrong things with SR, but all those many things shouldn't have even become topics of debate, if the two fundamental flaws of Einstein's theory were to be seen by the minds of at least some of the prominent figures in the physics of year 1905. From a personal perspective there is only one other subject in SR that I want to at least mention, before embarking on my next, more enjoyable, part of my quest. That subject is concerned with Minkowski's spacetime, which is--to my mind, of course--another blunder committed by a supposedly brilliant mind, and which--quite ironically--has found acceptance in the conventional establishment via Einstein and his SR. As far as I'm concerned the story of Minkowski's spacetime carries a double dose of irony with it, for the man who adopted it left us with a rather rare "pearl of wisdom", pearl of wisdom which--so beautifully to my taste--has a direct connection to the very nature of the subject. The pearl I have mentioned is Einstein's well known remark that "imagination is greater than knowledge", and this is (to my mind, again) perhaps one of the only two genuine pearls of wisdom that Einstein ever muttered.

Minkowski's spacetime is best depicted graphically, and thus I'll begin talking about it with the help of three diagrams, shown below.

The conventional description of the Universe is based on the general theory of relativity (GR), which is believed to be the correct theory of gravity, material interaction, space, and time. The general theory of relativity is an extension of the special theory, and thus it preserves some of the concepts used in Einstein's first theory of relativity. The most important concept that GR has inherited from SR is Minkowski's spacetime. Like most theoretical inventions of the modern era Minkowski's spacetime is, unsurprisingly, impossible to be visualised. The best one can do with the spacetime of relativity is to depict it graphically, in two dimensions, like I did in the diagrams above. The unification of space with time into the Minkowskian spacetime was just as unfortunate an event, for physics and for mankind, as Einstein's SR. As I'm looking at these conventional diagrams of the relativistic spacetime, and as my mind runs madly through the things I've learned about the theories that use them, I can almost hear the laughter of those who had struggled long before Einstein and Minkowski to understand the nature of reality. "What physical relevance do these diagrams have?" "How do the sun and the earth travel along the time-dimension in spacetime?" "Can anyone build a real model of the four-dimensional manifold, which spacetime is supposed to be?" "Can I travel in space, not in time, to the place where the earth was last year on the 9th of December?" "If no, why? If yes, in what direction should I fly?" "Are all things on the hypersurface of the present at the same point in time? If no, how could that be so? If yes, why isn't time absolute then?"

I will not spend any time in talking about the conventional spacetime, simply because on my very next page I will show a different way of how space and time should have been united into a far more coherent, more plausible, and more beautiful spacetime than the one invented by Minkowski. Here, then, I shall only remind you that before the advent of relativity physicists needed no mathematics to show the ordinary layman how the heavens worked, and that the layman had no problems understanding them. How things have changed! Today physicists cannot utter anything intelligible that could make at least the most gifted of laymen understand their view of the Universe. As for building real models of their mathematical theories... How ironic is it that this last century of darkness in physics has been largely caused by a certain man's complete obliviousness to what should be perhaps the most important, and the subtlest, creed in modern physics: "Know the difference between physics and mathematics at least as well as you know the similarity between them". How poignantly ironic is it, still, when that very man cautioned the world that "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"!

Some final thoughts

Have you never found rather strange the fact that the two most important theories in modern physics have so many things in common, in spite of those many radical and irreconcilable differences that paradoxically exist between them? For instance, don't you think is strange that both of them are seemingly running counter to common sense? And what about that common trait that neither of them can be visualised? Or how about that common predilection of each to spawn forth copious amounts of paradoxes when they're subjected to any stress or scrutiny? Or, moreover still, have you never been suspicious about the conventional assertion that both of them are bizarre, nay absurd, because apparently the Universe is so? Or how about the...