Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity

Scientific Theory
Or Illusion?

2002
Milan R. Pavlovic
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 2

PREFACE

It is hard, today, to find a book or essay which takes a critical attitude towards Einstein's treatment
of time and space, as the basis of the theory of relativity. On the contrary, there are many books and
essays which not only uncritically accept but also glorify everything that Einstein has ever written
or said. Indeed, there seems to be a competition to prove who understands Einstein better, giving
the impression that Einstein himself did not understand the problems as they do.
A great avalanche of support has made this theory acceptable to many people, physicists and
laymen alike, even though it clashes with the sense of reason. This is why it is very daring to even
think whether the theory is good or not. To some extent the theory is pretty unintelligible so it
makes people doubt themselves, and their capability to reason, let alone to judge it. Especially when
one knows that there are so-called, experimental proofs of the theory's correctness.
One gets the impression that physics has gone way ahead, far beyond the human capacity to
reason. Mathematics has become the master and physics its servant, instead of the other way around.
Many researchers in the area of physics, especially nuclear physics, rely on mathematics more and
more, so they do not even make the effort to understand the physics of the process they are
researching.
This book originated in such circumstances, where I dared to, among other things, take a critical
approach to Einstein's treatment of space and time, because they are the base not only of relativity
theory but of physics generally. It is suggested, and I hope proved that the explanation of the result
of Michelson's measurement with regard to the ether was wrong, that Lorentz hypothesis about the
contraction of bodies due to motion through the ether was wrong, that Einstein's hypothesis about
the contraction of bodies as a real physical process caused only by motion is wrong too, that
Einstein's interpretations of Fizeau's experimental results were wrong, that Einstein's definition and
interpretation of the contraction of space and the dilatation of time is wrong, that Einstein's
definition and use of his theorem on the addition of speeds is wrong, that the relativistic way of
defining the Doppler effect is wrong and that it is hard to maintain Einstein's claim that the velocity
of light is the maximum velocity in nature.
Due to the radical nature of such an attitude, it was necessary to make multiple proofs of certain
claims, so that some sections presented here may appear to be too extensive and less interesting.
The book gives construction data on and describes the function of new interferometers which
have great potential to measure the speed of a body's motion in relation to the ether. One of these
interferometers has been used in an attempt to confirm the existence of the cosmic quiescent ether,
which Michelson was searching for. Since the results of these measurements were not positive, it
can be confirmed that such an ether does not exist.
A hypothesis on the existence of an earth's ether has also been given and explained. A method for
confirming the existence of such an ether by means of a new interferometer has been described.
A new interpretation of Fizeau's experiment with corresponding calculation of the interference
fringes shift has also been given. This calculation completely agrees with the results of the
experiment.
This book also details chronological events which have led to the phenomenon of the relativistic
comprehension of time and space and to the theory of relativity as well.
Considering its subject matter and its attitude towards the same, the book is, in all events, unusual
but I hope it is very interesting as well.

Belgrade, August 1994. Milan R. Pavlovic

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 3

Preface to the third revised and supplemented edition

The third edition of this book is extended to examine the relativistic determination of aberration,
the mass of a body in motion, the connection between mass and energy and simultaneity, by which
the following was proved.
The relevant equations and formulas were not derived in the correct way.
The Einstein's formula for transversal mass is not correct.
The formulas for energy and are not relativistic.
The relativistic way of determining simultaneity is wrong and has been so adjusted in order to
reach a false conclusion, which leads to further false conclusions in relation to time and space.
A special part of this book is devoted to the refutation of the existence of antimatter and the
annihilation of matter and antimatter. On that basis a hypothesis is given on the existence of a new
neutral particle, a hypothesis that the whole of matter consists of electrons and positrons only and a
hypothesis that mass and matter are, on the whole, electromagnetic nature.
In addition to the above, some smaller corrections have been made and the text of the previous
edition of the book has been further extended.

Belgrade, August 1997. Milan R. Pavlovic

Preface to the fourth revised and supplemented edition

The fourth edition of this book has been extended to include: a new explanation of the phenomena
of aberration, a method for checking the correctness of the hypothesis on which the new explanation
of aberration is based, derivations of the equations and by the
classical procedure, a new explanation of the phenomena of red shift in the radiation spectra of
distant galaxies, new hypotheses about the origin of primary cosmic rays and their enormous
energies and some remarks on de Broglie's hypothesis on the wave nature of particles.
In addition to the above some corrections and additions have been made to the sections on
aberration, the mass and energy of the electron in motion and simultaneity.

Belgrade, March 2000. Milan R. Pavlovic

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 4

Table Of Contents :

1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS................................................................................................................................... 8
2. TRANSFORMATION OF COORDINATES, THE GALILEAN TRANSFORMATION, INERTIAL SYSTEMS ................ 9
3. SIMILARITIES IN PROPAGATION OF LIGHT AND SOUND WAVES .................................................................11
4. THE ETHER AS A CARRIER OF ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA ................................................................13
5. MICHELSON - MORLEY'S EXPERIMENT .........................................................................................................14
5.1 The performance of the experiment and calculation of the interference shift .................................... 14
5.2 The influence of the Doppler effect on the measurement results........................................................ 17
6. A NEW INTERFEROMETER FOR MEASURING THE SPEED OF A BODY'S MOTION RELATIVELY TO AN
ETHER................................................................................................................................................................20
7. SOME ATTEMPTS TO MEASURE THE EARTH'S MOTION RELATIVELY TO AN ETHER BY MEANS OF
THE NEW INTERFEROMETER ............................................................................................................................24
8. EARTH'S ETHER AND THE POSSIBILITY OF ASCERTAINING ITS EXISTENCE ...................................................26
9. LORENTZ EXPLANATION OF THE NEGATIVE RESULTS OF MICHELSON'S EXPERIMENT ................................28
10. THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION ..............................................................................................................30
11. SOME OBSERVATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION ...................................34
12. DERIVING THE TRANSFORMATION OF COORDINATES BASED ON THE SATISFACTION OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR INVARIABILITY ..................................................................................................................36
13. THE INFLUENCE OF WATER MOTION ON THE SPEED OF LIGHT (FIZEAU'S TEST) .......................................42
14. A NEW EXPLANATION OF FIZEAU'S TEST RESULT .......................................................................................45
15. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY .......................................................................................49
16. THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE VELOCITY ..............................................................................................................52
17. CONTRACTION OF SPACE ...........................................................................................................................55
17.1 Contraction of space according to the special theory of relativity ..................................................... 56
17.2 Contraction of space according to the scientific literature ................................................................. 57
17.2.1 Contraction of space according to the Lorentz transformation ................................................... 57
17.2.2 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 2............................................................. 59
17.2.3 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 4............................................................. 59
17.2.4 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 5............................................................. 60
17.3 A new way of determining the contraction of space .......................................................................... 61
17.3.1 Contraction of space according to the Lorentz transformation ................................................... 61
17.3.2 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 2............................................................. 62
17.3.3 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 4............................................................. 62
17.3.4 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 5............................................................. 63
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 5

18. DILATATION (CONTRACTION) OF TIME ......................................................................................................65

18.1 Dilatation of time according to the special theory of relativity .......................................................... 65
18.2 Dilatation of time according to the scientific literature ...................................................................... 68
18.2.1 Dilatation of time according to the Lorentz transformation ........................................................ 68
18.2.2 Dilatation of time according to transformation No. 2 .................................................................. 69
18.2.3 Dilatation of time according to transformation No. 4 .................................................................. 70
18.2.4 Dilatation of time according to transformation No. 5 .................................................................. 70
18.3 Checking the correctness of determining the contraction of space and dilatation of time ............... 71
18.3.1 Checking in case of the Lorentz transformation .......................................................................... 71
18.3.2 Checking in case of transformation No. 2 .................................................................................... 72
18.3.3 Checking in case of transformation No. 4 .................................................................................... 72
18.3.4 Checking in case of transformation No. 5 .................................................................................... 72
18.4 A new way of determining the contraction of time ............................................................................ 73
18.4.1 Contraction of time according to the Lorentz transformation..................................................... 73
18.4.2 Contraction of time according to transformation No. 2 .............................................................. 74
18.4.3 Contraction of time according to transformation No. 4 .............................................................. 74
18.4.4 Contraction of time according to transformation No. 5 .............................................................. 74
18.5 Checking the correctness of the new way of determining the contraction of space and time .......... 75
18.5.1 Checking in case of the Lorentz transformation .......................................................................... 76
18.5.2 Checking in case of transformation No. 2 .................................................................................... 76
18.5.3 Checking in case of transformation No. 4 .................................................................................... 76
18.5.4 Checking in case of transformation No. 5 .................................................................................... 77
19. ADDITION OF SPEEDS ................................................................................................................................. 79
19.1 Addition of speeds in a vacuum .......................................................................................................... 79
19.2 Addition of speeds in water ................................................................................................................ 84
20. FIZEAU'S TEST AND THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY .........................................................................85
21. THE INFLUENCE OF MOTION OF THE RADIATION SOURCE AND THE RECEIVER ON LIGHT AND
SOUND FREQUENCY (DOPPLER EFFECT) ..........................................................................................................88
21.1 The classical way of determining the Doppler Effect .......................................................................... 88
21.2 The relativistic way of determining the Doppler Effect ...................................................................... 90
21.2.1 Determining the Doppler Effect by use of equations of the Lorentz ........................................... 90
transformation......................................................................................................................................... 90
21.2.2 Determining the Doppler Effect by use of equations of transformation No. 2............................ 95
21.2.3 Determining the Doppler Effect by use of equations of transformation No. 4............................ 96
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 6

21.2.4 Determining the Doppler Effect by use of the equations of the transformation No. 5 ............... 97
22. ABERRATION ...............................................................................................................................................98
22.1 The classical way of determining the angle of aberration .................................................................. 98
22.2 The relativistic way of determining the angle of aberration ............................................................. 100
22.3 Objections to the relativistic approach to determining the angle of aberration .............................. 101
22.4 A new explanation of aberration....................................................................................................... 102
22.5 Did Bradley make a mistake in determining the course of diurnal aberration? ............................... 103
22.6 Ascertaining the course of the diurnal aberration by means of astronomical observation ............. 106
22.7 Possible errors in determining the earth's axis of rotation if the earth's and sun's ether exist ....... 108
23. MASS AND ENERGY ..................................................................................................................................113
23.1 The classical way of determining the masses of an electron in motion............................................ 113
23.2 The relativistic way of determining the masses of an electron in motion ........................................ 114
23.2.1 Lorentz equations for the masses of an electron in motion ...................................................... 114
23.2.2 Sommerfield's derivation of the equations for the masses of an electron in motion ............... 115
23.2.3 Einstein's derivation of the equations for the masses of an electron in motion ....................... 118
23.3 Objections to the Einstein's way of deriving equations for masses of a moving electron................ 122
23.4 Concept of mass ................................................................................................................................ 126
23.5 The kinetic energy of an electron in motion ..................................................................................... 128
23.6 The energy of a body ......................................................................................................................... 129

23.6.1 The accuracy of the equation ................................................................................... 129

23.6.2 Poincare's derivation of the equation ...................................................................... 130

23.6.3 Einstein's derivation of the equation ....................................................................... 131

23.7 Objections to Einstein's derivation of the equation ....................................................... 135

23.8 The derivation of the equation by the classical procedure ............................................. 142

23.9 The derivation of the equation by the classical procedure ....................... 144
23.10 The pressure of electromagnetic radiation, the red shift and the cosmic rays .............................. 147
24. ON SIMULTANEITY AND RELATIVITY OF LENGTH AND TIME INTERVAL ...................................................152
24.1 Einstein's determination of simultaneity and relativity of length and time interval ........................ 152
24.2 Objections to Einstein's determination of simultaneity and relativity of length and time interval.. 155
25. THE PROBLEM OF MOTION IN THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY ....................................................................159
26. ANTIMATTER AND THE ANNIHILATION OF MATTER AND ANTIMATTER DO NOT EXIST..........................162
26.1 The energy of a magnetic field and the radius of an electron in motion .......................................... 163
26.2 The kinetic energy of electron and positron at the moment of their collision ................................. 165
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 7

26.3 The positron is not antimatter .......................................................................................................... 166

26.4 A new neutral particle - the ELPOTRIN .............................................................................................. 167
26.5 The composition and nature of matter ............................................................................................. 168
27. DE BROGLIE'S PERPETUAL MOTION .........................................................................................................169
28. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................171
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................176
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 8

1. COORDINATE SYSTEMS
Space is unlimited and man has, since the distant past, had a problem in defining his position or
the position of a point in that given infinity. With time he found that space is three - dimensional,
and that the position of a point in relation to another point in space can be determined by three
length values. This method was first formulated by Descartes, and the first rectangular coordinate
system appeared. As is well known, it consists of three axes , , , which intersect at the origin
of the coordinates under a right angle. In this rectangular coordinate system the position of each
point in space is defined, in relation to the origin, with three lengths, that is, with three coordinate
points , , . In Fig. 1.1 the position of the point is shown in space in relation to the
origin, and from there we can see that
(1.1)

In Fig. 1.2 the position of the point in the plane is shown and in that case we have
(1.2)

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2

If point lies on one of the axes of the coordinate system, for example on the -axis, then
, that is . Beside the above mentioned coordinate system there are others such as the
polar, the cylindrical, and the spherical etc. They are not important for the further presentation,
however.
The coordinate system, besides making it possible to define the position of a body in space, also
makes it easier to study its motion in space. The origin of the system is connected to some reference
point or body. So, for example, when studying the earth's motion round the sun, the origin is taken
to be the center of the sun. A passenger aboard a ship, stands still in relation to the ship, but together
with the ship is in motion in relation to the coast. If the coordinate system is connected to the ship
then the passenger will be at rest in the given coordinate system. But, on the other hand, if we
connect the coordinate system to some point on the coast, then the passenger will move in that new
coordinate system. Thus, the passenger can either be at rest or in motion while remaining in the
same situation, depending on which body of reference (coordinate system) he uses to define his
state of motion. In this way the relativity of motion was recognized. In fact, every motion is relative,
something which was known in Aristotle's time.
The theory of relativity is based on the Lorentz transformation of coordinates. In that
transformation and in the theory of relativity are used two coordinate systems. One of them is at rest
and the other is moved uniformly and translatory relative to the first.
In addition to the relativity of motion there are relativity of time and many other kinds of relativity.
Broadly speaking, every measurement or determination of magnitude or quality is relative, that is in
relation to some other magnitude or quality that we have defined as absolute or in some other way.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 9

Today the notion of relativity has become connected exclusively with the name of Einstein.
Simply said, it became in some way his property. Many indeed believe that Einstein was the first to
understand relativity and that it had not been defined correctly before him. This is, of course, a great
mistake and an injustice to Galileo, Newton and Lorentz.
When reader read this book, carefully and with the understanding, then, to him will be clear that
Einstein's relativity is big illusion, which we should reject and return to Galilean and Newtonian
relativity.

2. TRANSFORMATION OF COORDINATES, THE GALILEAN

TRANSFORMATION, INERTIAL SYSTEMS

The position of some point in space can be defined by the coordinates of a coordinate system,
which is connected to some other coordinate system, as a reference. For example, in Fig. 2.1 two
coordinate systems are shown in a plane - system and , whose axes are parallel.

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2

The system is marked by , and the system by . The origin of the system (point
) is given in the system with coordinates , . It can be seen in Fig. 2.1 that the
coordinates , of the point in the system can be presented as a function of coordinates ,
of the system by the following relation

(2.1)

Coordinates , can also be presented as a function of the coordinates ,

(2.2)

A similar transformation can also be derived when the axes of these two systems are at a certain
angle, that is when they are not parallel.
The above mentioned transformation is used in cases when the systems have no relative motion.
Let us assume that the system is moving translatory and at constant speed relatively to the
system (Fig. 2.2). In that case the coordinates of the origin are and ,
where and are the corresponding speed components , and is time. The coordinates of a
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 10

point in the system, can be expressed in terms of the coordinates , of the system in
the following way

(2.3)

As in the previous case when the systems had no mutual motion, converse transformation may be
used

(2.4)

The same relations are valid for two three - dimensional systems which mutually have translatory
motion at constant speed

(2.5)

And

(2.6)

At this transformation time is the same for both coordinate systems. In classical physics time is
the absolute magnitude. It passes evenly and it does not depend upon space, the body of reference,
the coordinate system or anything else from the outside.
The above mentioned transformation is called Galilean transformation in honor of the founder of
mechanics. It is used for all inertial systems. The inertial system is the system of coordinates, in
which inertial law retains its original shape. In connection with that, Newtonian relativity principle
says: "There is an infinite number of equivalent systems known to us as an inertial, which have an
uniform and rectilinear motion in relation to one another, where the laws of mechanics are fulfilled
in the classical form." This means that if one system is inertial so is any other system inertial if, in
relation to the first, it moves uniformly and rectilinearly.
Now we examine the case in Fig. 2.2. Let the speed be constant in the first system, which
means that the acceleration is equal to zero, so inertial law is valid for it, and therefore we say that
the system is inertial. We can see from Eq. (2.5) that the moving system, which moves
rectilinearly and uniformly relatively to is also inertial because

(2.7)

So, at the transformation of coordinates, the equation for the inertial law has remained the same,
which means that with Galilean transformation is maintained the invariability of the equation for
acceleration in the case of an inertial system.
The invariability of the equation for acceleration does not hold in systems which move
acceleratedly or if they rotate one relatively to the other.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 11

Regarding light and sound waves the invariability of the equation for propagation of the same
does not hold, even in the case of an inertial system, that is, Galilean transformation.

3. SIMILARITIES IN PROPAGATION OF LIGHT AND SOUND WAVES

The speed of light is extremely high, and for a long time there was a theory that light could
instantaneously reach the most distant points; in a word, it was considered that the speed of light is
infinite. Galileo was the first who tried to find it experimentally, but without success. The first
person who succeeded in approximately determining the speed of light, by observing the eclipse of
the first satellite of Jupiter in 1675, was Olaf Römer.
Because of the high speed of light, it is difficult to follow, examine, and therefore understand all
phenomena connected to its behavior. Light's motion is wavelike in nature as is sound. These two
natural phenomena have a lot in common, for example: propagation (plane and spherical wave),
interference, the Doppler effect, refraction, reflection etc. The speed of sound in the air is about
9·105 times lower than the speed of light. That is why it is much easier to perceive, follow and
measure certain phenomena present in sound rather than in light. Therefore, in order to understand
with ease some phenomena connected with the light and treated by the theory of special relativity it
should, at first, to consider the propagation of sound in the air, and to compare it with the
propagation of light in a vacuum.
Let us assume that at a point in the homogeneous air environment there is a sinusoidal oscillator
whose oscillation generates a spherical sound wave. If the oscillation of the oscillator is given by
equation
(3.1)

where is elongation, is amplitude, is circular frequency and is time, then the sound
waves generated, when observed at any point on the sphere with a radius , is defined by the
equation

(3.2)

Where the radius of the sphere of the observed is spherical wave and is the velocity of sound in
the air. If the environment is homogeneous then the propagation of the wave will be equal in all
directions, but for the purposes of observation it is enough to take just one direction. Then Eq. (3.2)
becomes

(3.3)

Propagation of the spherical sound wave is given by the following equation

(3.4)
That is
(3.5)
And the propagation of the plane wave along the -axis by the following equation
(3.6)

The Eqs. (3.2), (3.3), (3.5) and (3.6) can be applied to light waves by the following meaning of the
values. The elongation would present a disturbance of the electric or magnetic waves since they
are mutually conjugated. Amplitude presents the amplitude of the electric or magnetic wave. In
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 12

this case the circular frequency has the same meaning, while would be the speed of light
instead of the speed of sound.
We should pay special attention to the Eqs. (3.4), (3.5) and (3.6), because they were used to derive
the Lorentz transformation whose aim was to prove the contraction of the body moving through an
ether and to explain the negative result of Michelson's experiment. Really, the above stated
equations were treated as equations which describe electromagnetic wave motion, instead of sound
wave motion. In considering the fact that these equations have the same form both for the light and
sound wave propagation it is justifiable to state that the special theory of relativity can be derived
on the basis of sound propagation instead of on the base of light propagation. In the special theory
of relativity it is stated that there is no higher speed than the speed of light, not even the relative
speed. It was the same with sound. A lot of time, effort and knowledge were required to break
through the "sound barrier". For a long time it was considered impossible. Many had stated that an
aircraft would simply fall apart on reaching such a speed. In spite of this many aircraft of different
dimensions have broken that sound barrier carrying heavy loads. Now many state that there is no
way of breaking through the "electromagnetic barrier", that is to obtain a speed higher than the
speed of light in vacuum. It is debatable whether that statement is based upon the facts or
incomplete and approximate mathematical equations. Has it not, in fact, been broken by the distant
quasars, that, judging by their red shift, are moving away from us at three times the speed of light
[16]?
Sound velocity propagation does not depend on the speed of motion of the sound source. The
same occurs in the case of the propagation of light. However, in certain circumstances the velocity
of sound can be higher or lower than in the open air.
Let us suppose that the sound source is located at the origin of an unmoving coordinate system
(Fig.3.1) and let us say that a closed car moves in a straight line, along the -axis at speed .
The sound pulse, generated at the origin of the system reaches the moving closed car after some
time and passes through the back wall into the air inside. From that moment the sound in the car
moves from the back of the car to the front at speed in relation to the back wall of the car. In
relation to the sound source in the coordinate system , from which it originated, this sound is now
moving at speed , where is the speed of the car and with it also the speed of air which
carries the sound. In that way the sound velocity in relation to the source can be up to almost two
times higher. If the car moves in the opposite direction to that of the sound, then the sound velocity
in the car relative to the source would be . This occurs because the closed car carries medium -
particles of air, whose oscillations transfer sound. If the car is open this phenomenon does not occur,
and the sound is propagated at the same speed as in the surrounding open space independently of
the speed and direction of motion of the open car. In a closed car or an airplane, whose speed may
be higher than the speed of sound, the passengers can have a normal conversation and the speed of
motion has no influence on the propagation of the sound inside the car or plane, because the
particles, that transfer the sound by oscillation, are carried inside the closed space. If it were an open
car traveling at supersonic speed then the particles would not be carried and the sound from the
back part of that open car would not reach the front part. For example, it is well known that a sound
of a jet stays behind the jet when the speed of the jet is higher than the speed of sound.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 13

Fig. 3.1
A similar situation could occur with light if there were a medium whose oscillations transfer light,
and if this medium could be contained and carried. This medium could, for example, be tied to earth,
in which case earth would carry it along, rotate with it on the way round the sun, and move together
with the sun through cosmos. This is the case with, for example, the magnetic field of earth.
Likewise it could also be the case for the earth's ether. If that were so, then the speed of light in
relation to its source (star) could be higher than 300000 km/sec, and many phenomena such as, for
example, aberration would be logical and clear. At all events this idea cannot be excluded.

4. THE ETHER AS A CARRIER OF ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA

In the middle of the 17th century, Descartes presented the idea of the existence of the ether as a
carrier of light. This idea was a predecessor to the wave theory, first proposed by Hook in 1667, but
first clearly formulated by Hygens in 1678. Their great contemporary Newton was the author of the
opposite doctrine - corpuscular theory. This theory, which dominated for a hundred years thanks to
Newtonian authority, claims that glowing bodies radiate tiny particles, corpuscles which move
according to the laws of mechanics. The wave theory, however, established the analogy between the
propagation of light and wave motion on water or sound waves in the air. Because of that it
supposes an elastic medium which fills all the empty space and transparent bodies. special particles
of this substance simply oscillate in relation to their balanced position and in such a way make the
transfer.
At first it was supposed that there was not only one but a whole series of ethers: optical, thermal,
magnetic etc. For each phenomenon corresponding ether was assumed as a carrier. At the beginning
all these ethers had nothing in common. But as time passed a connection was found between
phenomena from different areas of physics, phenomena which had not seemed to be related. Finally
the ether appeared as a carrier of all physical phenomena, occurring in space without matter. The
ether hypothesis was given great support by the revelation that light presents the oscillating
electromagnetic process. Keeping in mind, that light as electromagnetic oscillation process comes to
us from far away stars, passing through enormous tracts of empty space, and since most physical
phenomena and influences propagate throughout the cosmic space, it is quite logical that the
hypothesis was reached that this space is not empty, but filled with a fine, weightless substance -
called the ether, which is the carrier of all phenomena and influences. Furthermore, it is assumed
that ether is isotropic, absolutely quiescent and can penetrate anywhere and that coarse cosmic
bodies and others material bodies move through it. As such, the ether would be suitable for the
absolute inertial system, and the coordinate system connected to the ether would be the absolute
coordinate system where the velocity of light would be equal in all directions. The presentation of
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 14

electromagnetic phenomena would be simplified in it. All positions and motions of bodies in the
universe could be considered and calculated relatively to that system, which would make the
presentation and calculation of motions much simpler.
Einstein was the greatest opponent of the idea of the ether's existence. A large part of his opus is
related to the ether.

5. MICHELSON - MORLEY'S EXPERIMENT

5.1 The performance of the experiment and calculation of the interference shift

Since the existence of an absolute quiescent ether was assumed, it was quite logical to try to
measure the speed of the earth's motion and the speed of the whole Solar system relatively to the
ether. By measuring the eclipse of the first satellite of Jupiter no reliable proof was obtained about
the motion of the entire Solar system relatively to the ether. Even at confining measurement to the
earth it was difficult to establish the relative motion of the earth in relation to the ether. Research
into the influence of the earth's motion on the speed of light, showed that the time, necessary for a
light ray to travel a distance forward and backward, differed only in a small magnitude of the
second order from the value of the time in the case when the earth is at rest relatively to the ether.
Thus

And from there

The experiment had to be accurate enough to register with certainty the small magnitude of the
second order. It was believed that this could be achieved by means of an interferometer, because
interferometric methods give, with great accuracy, the time difference, necessary for light passing a
different and unequal distance between two points.
In this way the famous Michelson experiment of 1881 and the Michelson - Morley experiment of
late 1887 were arrived at. The aim of the experiment was to determine the speed of the earth's
motion relatively to the ether, that is, to the absolute coordinate system connected to the ether, and
also to determine whether the earth in motion draws an ether with it, and to what extent.
Below it is explained how measurements were carried out and how the expected interference shift
is calculated.
For the first experiment Michelson used his interferometer a scheme of which is shown in Fig. 5.1.
It consisted of two pipes which are placed at a right angle. At the intersection of the pipes axes there
was a semi-transparent mirror placed at 45° angle in relation to the incoming radiation. At the end
of each pipe there were mirrors and .
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 15

Fig. 5.1
The light is brought from a radiation source to the semi-transparent mirror - beam splitter -
by means of an astronomic telescope , where the interference is observed by telescope . The
collimated beam of light is divided at the beam splitter into two beams, which are directed to
the mirrors and so that after the reflection of the same, they are returned to the splitter
where they join again and are directed to the telescope . In the telescope the interference fringes
and their possible shift are observed. The beam of light which is being reflected from the mirror
is parallel to the earth's direction of motion, and the other beam is normal to that direction.
Because of earth's motion in relation to the ether, a displacement of the measuring system arises
during the period of time when light travels from the beam splitter to the mirror and back.
The distances from the beam splitter (Fig. 5.1) to the mirrors and are equal and amount
to . Looking at Fig. 5.2, we can see that the beam splitter will move from position to position
during the time the light from the point reaches the point via mirror . In such a way the
light passes the distance at speed , while the whole system together with the
beam splitter passes the distance at speed and from there it result

(5.1)

Besides
(5.2)

From Eqs. (5.1) and (5.2) we find that the length , which the first beam passes from the point
to the mirror and back to the point , is

(5.3)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 16

Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3

The other light beam, which is directed through the beam splitter towards the mirror , passes
the distance to the mirror and back to the beam splitter the distance (Fig. 5.3). As can
be seen in the figure, while the beam moved from the splitter to the mirror it also moved for the
distance in the position. However, while the light moved from the splitter to the mirror
and back, the splitter moved for to the position, so the other beam passes the total path
before joining with the first
(5.4)

For a time while this other beam travels the distance at speed , the mirror passes the
distance at a speed , so the following ratio is valid

(5.5)

The other beam passes the total path at speed for the same time that it takes the
splitter to pass the path at a speed . Thus

(5.6)

From Eqs. (5.4), (5.5) and (5.6) we obtain that the length of the path of the other beam

(5.7)

and the differences of the optical paths of these two beams, which join for the sake of interference,
is

(5.8)

For the position of the interferometer which is realized by rotation of the same, round the vertical
axis through 90°, Michelson used the same method of calculation and concluded that the shift
between the beams would be
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 17

(5.9)

In this way by rotating the interferometer through 90°, the same value of the shift is achieved but
with the opposite sign, so the total shift, which should be experimentally established is

(5.10)

For, the speed of motion of the earth round the sun, which was known at that time, the shift given
by Eq. (5.10) should have been easy to measure. The interferometer was constructed in such a way
that it could determine motion up to 30 times smaller than that expected. However the measurement
gave a negative result, that is no shift of the interference fringes was perceived.
At the first measurement the length of the branch of the interferometer was 1.2 meters. The
whole system was floating in mercury so it could be turned easily at the speed of one turn in 6
minutes. During the further experiments the length of the interferometer's branch was extended to
30 meters. The sensitivity of the interferometer was also increased by cooling it and by other
technical improvements. The experiment has also been made using a laser which considerably
increases the accuracy of the measurement. Even with such accuracy the results of the experiment
were negative. The importance of this measurement proves the fact that in the first 50 years were
carefully prepared and made 16 such complicated measurements in which more than 10 the most
famous experimentalist physicists took part.
Michelson's negative result was a great surprise and created confusion in the scientific societies.
The existence of an ether was not confirmed, and there were difficulties how this could be
explained and brought into conformity with existing theory. These negative results were a total
catastrophe for Lorentz theory.
Michelson's negative result is considered one of the most significant in physics, not only of that
time but in general, because it is a question of the fundamental understanding not only of light but
of the physics field in general.

5.2 The influence of the Doppler Effect on the measurement results

In connection with Michelson's experiment, it is interesting to note that none of those who
conducted the measurements analyzed the results and wrote about them, noticed that the influence
of the Doppler Effect on the magnitude of the interference shift had been omitted. That effect
should certainly be taken into account, because it affects the frequency of a radiating source which
moves in relation to the ether, and also the frequency of the radiation which falls on a mirror in
motion (as a receiver), or is reflected from the mirror (as the source of radiation, since an irradiated
place becomes a source of radiation). The magnitude of the interference shift depends, in a certain
way, on the frequency as well, that is on the number of wavelengths of the radiation which dispose
during the propagation along the branches of an interferometer.
Fig. 5.4 shows the way Michelson's interferometer works when the earth, and the interferometer
with it, moves through the ether in the direction of the radiation of the source, and Fig. 5.5 when
that motion is normal to the radiation direction, that is when the interferometer is rotated through 90°
in relation to the previous condition.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 18

For the case given in Fig. 5.4, the literature usually takes oblique propagation of light towards the
mirror , as it is shown in Fig. 5.2. That way of finding the shift does not correspond to the
physical process of interference, it is not completely correct and it is unnecessarily complicated.
This last is particularly true when in such a condition the interferometer is rotated by 90°, for the
purpose of calculating the shift.

Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5

In Figs. 5.4 and 5.5 is the source of a collimated beam of light in the form of plane waves,
is the frequency of the source radiation, is the change in frequency of radiation which falls on
the mirror in motion, is the change in the frequency of the source of radiation because of its
motion, and other symbols are the same as in Figs. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.
The analysis of the interferometer function was conducted for only two light rays, whose
interference shift is calculated, and which come from the same plane of the plane wave. The other
rays from the same plane of the plane wave come into interference in the same way.
The number of waves of the light radiation at a given moment, which are ranged along some
length , will depend on the length and the size of the wavelength or the frequency of the
radiation, so

(5.11)

Bearing this in mind, according to the Fig. 5.4, we find that the number of wavelengths of light
spread from the beam splitter to the mirror and back to the beam splitter

(5.12)

And the number of wavelengths spread along the second branch of the interferometer from the
place where the beam is split to the place where the beams are joined for the purpose of interference
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 19

(5.13)

The difference in the number of wavelengths on these two branches of the interferometer is

(5.14)

When the interferometer is rotated through 90 degrees, we get the case given in Fig. 5.5,
according to which the number of wavelengths spread along the interferometer's first branch is

(5.15)

And the number of wavelengths spread along the interferometer's second branch is

(5.16)

The difference in the number of wavelengths spread along the interferometer branches, after the
interferometer is rotated through 90 degrees, is

(5.17)

Using Eqs. (5.14) and (5.17) we find that the difference of wave lengths sought, that is the shift of
interference fringes, after rotating the interferometer by 90 degrees, expressed in the number of
wave lengths of the source of radiation

(5.18)

Bearing in mind that , finally we find the total shift to be

(5.19)

Or expressed in the same way as in Eq. (5.10)

(5.20)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 20

Which shows the shift to be expected is twice as big as the one that Michelson and Morley
calculated.

6. A NEW INTERFEROMETER FOR MEASURING THE SPEED OF A BODY'S

MOTION RELATIVELY TO AN ETHER
In order to measure the speed of the earth or a body's motion in relation to an ether successfully, it
is necessary to have an interferometer which would, because of motion, show an easily measurable
shift between the parts of a split beam, which interfere. The proceeding analysis shows that this
requirement is not fulfilled by Michelson's interferometer or by any other known interferometer.
However, it is fulfilled only by my new interferometers, which are much better than they seem at
first sight. They are very sensitive, of small dimensions and simple construction. In the first place
they are designed to measure the speed of motion relative to the ether, that is to confirm the
existence of an ether. Their use also excludes the uncertainty in connection with Lorentz contraction
of a body's length due to motion through the ether. With this interferometer the Doppler Effect has
no influence on the magnitude of the shift of interference patterns.

Fig. 6.1
The scheme of one new interferometer is presented in Fig. 6.1 where is a laser with a
collimator, is a beam splitter of the laser light radiation, semi-transparent mirror, placed at an
angle of 45° in relation to the direction of the laser radiation; , and are a mirrors;
are photons from the collimated laser's source of radiation; are photons reflected by the splitter -
the reflected part of the radiation beam; are photons passed through the splitter - the passed
through part of the radiation beam; is a measurer of the shift between the interfered beams or a
screen for observation an interference fringes shift and is a length of the interferometer side.
The extreme coherence of the laser radiation enables this interferometer to function stably.
When the system is at rest relative to the ether, the parts of the beam (photons), which are far from
one another for or time shifted for , interfere, where is the length of one interferometer
side and is the speed of light.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 21

In Fig. 6.2, we can see the scheme of interferometer function when it is moving at a speed
through the ether in the direction of the laser radiation and when this motion is taken into
consideration. In this figure is the displacement of the whole system and also of all the parts of
the interferometer, while the part of the beam, which has been passed through the splitter, passes
from the splitter to the mirror .

Fig. 6.2
The initial position of the mirrors and the beam splitter is marked with a full line. The position of
these components at the moment of the arrival of the studied ray is marked with an interrupted line.
So, the mirror is shifted by into the position , the mirror is shifted by in the
position , etc.
For easier explanation of the interferometer's function, the shift in the figures is considerably
increased in relation to the interferometer sides.
When the interferometer starts to function, the part of the beam , is reflected from the splitter in
the form of the beam which is not an object to be observed or taken into consideration. The
other part of that beam passes through the splitter in the form of the beam in the direction of
the mirror . During the time it takes that beam to reach the mirror from the splitter, all
mirrors and the splitter shift in the direction of the interferometer's motion for the distance . While
this beam passes from the mirror to the mirror all mirrors and splitter move for another
distance . So by the time the beam reaches the splitter moving through the interferometer,
which is shifted in the direction of the system's motion for the distance . Inside the
interferometer, the beam passes the total way
(6.1)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 22

And then a greater part of the beam passes through the splitter in the direction of the shift
measurer and joins up for the purpose of interference together with the reflected beam which, at
that moment reaches the splitter from the direction of the laser. When there is no motion of the
interferometer relatively to the ether, photons from the plane of the wave whose mutual shift is
interfere because the reflected part of the beam is late for in relation to the transmitted part
of the beam . However, when the interferometer moves in relation to the ether, the beam splitter
shifts forward for during the time while the beam passes all four sides of the interferometer.
Because of that the beam interferes with the beam which is late for . So, that
difference of the ways between the two beams, which interfere, is
(6.2)
If we rotate the system through 180 degrees, then the interferometer in the ether will move in the
opposite direction to the direction of the laser radiation, as it is shown in Fig. 6.3. So, the beam
which has been transmitted through the splitter will pass the following way in the interferometer
(6.3)
And during this time the splitter moves in the direction of the interferometer's motion for and
the difference of the paths of the interfered beams is
(6.4)
From Eqs. (6.2) and (6.4) it works out that by rotating the system through 180° we obtain the
difference of the shifts, which is measured by the shift measurer
(6.5)

Fig. 6.3

For the time while beam travels along path inside the interferometer at velocity ,
the beam splitter passes the way at a speed , so we have the following relation

(6.6)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 23

And from there and Eq. (6.5) we obtain

(6.7)

[ In consideration we take that

So

And

The exact equation is

But since then we can write

The shift presented by Eq. (6.7) is rather big and there are no difficulties in measuring its
magnitude and also a velocity of a body motion relative to the quiescent ether. This can be done
with great accuracy. For example, if = 30 km/s and = 0.1 m then = 8·10-5 m at rotation of
the interferometer through 180°. If rotation of the interferometer is just 1°, the mutual shift of the
interfered beams would be about 0.444·10-6 m.
As can be seen this interferometer is very sensitive and because of that the side should be small.
For better stability, the interferometer has to be compact, for instance to be made out of glass in the
shape of a cube of small dimensions. Three lateral sides of the cube should be mirrors and the
fourth should be a semi-mirror, beam splitter.
In order to reduce disturbance arising from repeated returns part of the beam into
interferometer and also for the sake of equalizing the intensities of the interfered beams, one mirror
at least should be semi-transparent. In conformity with it the beam splitter would transmit more than
it would reflect.
Measurements taken with the interferometer like this eliminate any dilemma in connection with
questions about the existence of the cosmic absolute quiescent ether and about the contraction of
bodies, which move through the ether.
In Fig. 6.4 a new and simpler interferometer is given with the same purpose as the previous one
where: is a laser with a collimator, and are a beam splitters, is a mirror or a beam
splitter and is a screen for observing interference which appears between the laser beams
reflected from the beam splitter and from the mirror .
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 24

Fig. 6.4
The interference shift caused by interferometer motion in relation to the ether, at interferometer
rotation through an angle of 180° is given by

(6.8)

Where is the distance between the beam splitter and mirror , is a speed of
interferometer motion in relation to the ether and is light velocity.
One side of the and would be coated with an antireflection coating, and the other side
with reflection coating where reflection would be about 50% in case of and about 38% in case
of . For the sake of better stability of the interference fringes this interferometer also would be
made from glass as a compact interferometer.
The new interferometer is the result of research into the possibilities of constructing a simple
interferometer which would be considerably more sensitive than any other already in existence. In
fact, my aim was to invent such an interferometer which could confirm my hypothesis on the
existence of the earth's ether. As it was earlier shown I realized that aim. The new interferometer
has that capacity, primarily, owing to the extraordinary coherence of laser radiation, which is used
with that interferometer.

7. SOME ATTEMPTS TO MEASURE THE EARTH'S MOTION RELATIVELY TO

AN ETHER BY MEANS OF THE NEW INTERFEROMETER
If the ether is quiescent and fills up the entire cosmos, it is quite logical to put the following
question: "What is the speed of earth's motion through the cosmos, that is, through this ether?" This
question is not simple at all. The earth moves round the sun at a speed of 30 km/s. However, the sun
moves and with itself pulls the earth around the center of the Galaxy, along an almost circular orbit,
at a speed of 220 - 230 km/s. Our Galaxy, together with the local group of Galaxies, moves in the
direction of another group of Galaxies in constellation of Virgo at a speed of 410 km/s etc.
The residual background radiation, that is the relict radiation which originated at the time of
cosmic expansion (the big bang), discovered by Wilson in 1965, makes possible some special
readings, which appear to be general for all parts of the cosmos, like some kind of an ether. For an
unmoving observer, in relation to that reading system, the distribution of the relic radiation
temperature is isotropic in all directions, only in the system connected to dispersed galaxies. The
relict radiation corresponds to a temperature of 2.7 K of the absolute black body, which corresponds
to the radiation wavelength of about 1.073 mm. When the observer is in motion, the Doppler Effect
causes the temperature of the residual background radiation to increase in the direction of the
observer's motion, and to decrease it in opposite direction. Because of these characteristics, the
absolute coordinate system can be connected to the relict radiation, as was the aim with the ether.
The speed of motion of the sun in relation to this radiation is about 410 km/s.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 25

For the above presented, we have anticipated a shift of an interference fringes which would
correspond to the speed of the earth's motion through the ether greater than 400 km/s, and not 30
km/s.
The attempt to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether by means of new
interferometer was made for the first time at the end of January 1994, for the second time in the
second half of May 1994, and for third time in the second half of March 1995.
The scheme of the measurement is presented in Fig. 7.1, where: is a helium - neon laser with
a collimator, is a beam splitter - a glass plate placed at a 45° angle in relation to the incoming
laser radiation, is a semi-transparent mirror with an attenuator of the radiation, and are
mirrors, is a screen for observation the interference fringes and is an optical table.
The whole system was set up and fastened to a platform, optical bench, which was placed and
fastened on the optical table, so that it could rotate through 360°.
The beam splitter reflected about 30% and allowed about 70% of the laser radiation to pass
through. This relation is convenient for the sake of the decrease of the disturbance produced by the
part of the laser beam which is reflected from the beam splitter to the interior of the interferometer.
Mirror was a glass plate whose front surface partially reflected the laser radiation towards
, and the back side absorbed radiation transmitted through the glass plate. In such a way a part
of the laser beam in the interferometer is attenuated.

Fig. 7.1
The sides of the interferometer were almost equal and approximately 0.1 m.
it was easy to establish the interference by means of precision laser, mirror and splitter mount, and
also it was very simple to follow the interference fringes on the screen.
The experiment was performed many times in a period of 10 - 13 hours, and the interference
fringes shift which would arise from a velocity higher than 0.5 km/s when the interferometer was
rotated through 360° were not noticed. Minor shifts of the interference fringes occurred, but it was
hard to determine with certainty if the shifts arose from instability of the laser function, whose
quality was not the best, or because of the mechanical instability of the interferometer parts, caused
by rotation of the optical table, or because of motion of the measuring system relatively to an ether.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 26

The system was not conceived to measure velocities less than 0.5 km/s, because, as was
mentioned earlier, much higher relative velocities were expected in the case of existence an
absolute quiescent and ubiquitous ether, as a carrier of light radiation.
Finally, according to the performed experiment and the given negative results the following
conclusion was derived:
1. An absolute quiescent and ubiquitous ether which is a carrier of light radiation, and through
which the earth moves does not exist, and
2. The possibility is not excluded that the earth, as well as the other bigger cosmic bodies, carry
their own ether, as it carries its own magnetic field.

8. EARTH'S ETHER AND THE POSSIBILITY OF ASCERTAINING ITS

EXISTENCE

For a long time many scientists have been occupied with the question of the ether's existence as a
carrier of electromagnetic radiation, which fills all the cosmos. Thanks to many experiments,
although some of them were explained incorrectly, the ether slowly but surely fading away from the
science stage. The theory of relativity inflicted a final blow. Thus, such an absolute quiescent
ubiquitous ether faded away, but some questions about certain electromagnetic phenomena have
been left unanswered. One of those questions is how electromagnetic radiation or the narrower part
of that radiation spectrum - light, is transmitted or propagated through the cosmos. The fact that
vacuum has electromagnetic characteristics also, in some way, points to the existence of an ether in
shape of an electromagnetic field.
The phenomenon of light aberration leads to the idea that the earth could have its own ether, in the
way that it has its own magnetic field. What is it really all about? In 1725, Bradley noticed a
deflection or an aberration of light while he was observing the stars, which had occurred as a
consequence of the earth's motion around the sun.
When we observe a star by means of a telescope, then the telescope is not pointed exactly at the
star, but at a small angle in relation to that direction. The magnitude of that angle depends on
the angle made by the seeming direction earth - star with the direction of the earth's motion. The
greatest deflection appears when = 90°. In that case the aberration angle is about 20.496". The
effect is such that the light which comes from the stars seems to deflect 20.496" in the direction of
the earth's motion. Because of this the telescope should be placed at that angle in relation to the
actual direction in order to observe the star. This angle has been defined by the equation

(8.1)

Where is the speed of the earth's motion around the sun and is the velocity of light.
Aberration of light rays, caused by an ether wind, has not been perceived in optical experiments
with the earth's light sources. Why? Because there is no cosmic ether on the earth, but only the
earth's ether, which moves together with the earth. So, there are no ether winds on the earth and
there is no aberration of such light rays.
The theory of relativity explains the phenomenon of aberration in the mathematical way, based on
the Lorentz transformation, but doesn't give a satisfactory physical explanation. Because of this, the
explanation has been taken with reserve. Especially, when it is known that this transformation, in
case of Michelson's experiment, proved contraction of one branch of the interferometer although it
didn't exist.
If an analogy is made between deflection of sound waves, due to the motion of the air as the
carrier of the sound and the aberration of light then one is led to speculate that there is also a carrier
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 27

of light, and because of its motion, the light, which propagates within it, is deflected. In other words,
the aberration proves the existence of earth's ether which the earth carries with it.
The question now appears to be whether an experiment can confirm or deny the existence of the
earth's ether? An old ubiquitous quiescent ether doesn't exist. This has been ascertained by means of
the new interferometer. But it is fortunate that with such an interferometer the existence of the
earth's ether can be confirmed. The new interferometers give such a big shift of the interference
fringes, that, a very small relative velocity can be successfully measured with them.
Michelson wanted to measure the speed of earth's motion relative to the quiescent cosmic ether, in
order to prove the ether's existence. In our case let us place a compact new interferometer on an
airplane in order to measure the airplane's velocity relatively to the earth's ether. But before that, for
any case, we have to use the same interferometer on the earth to see if the earth's ether rotates
together with the earth. If it rotates then there cannot be any shift of the interference fringes when
measurements are made on the earth. But if it does not rotate, or if earth does not completely pull it
at rotation, which is almost impossible there will be a certain shift which also proves the existence
of the earth's ether.
Thanks to the new interferometer there are more ways to measure the existence of the earth's ether.
Here below are descriptions of the two ways.
Let us imagine that a space ship catches up to the earth at its rotation around the sun, which has a
relatively small velocity in relation to the earth. This space ship has to land on earth at some place
near the Equator, where the radial velocity on the earth is = 40000 / 86400 = 0.463 km/s or =
1666.67 km/h, due to the rotation of earth. To the observer from the earth it will seem that the space
ship flies towards the West at a speed of 1667 km/h. This is so because of the earth rotation towards
the East.
Let us suppose that someone on the ship wants to confirm the existence of the earth's ether by
using a new interferometer. When the ship was far from the earth, the ether could not be discovered,
as would be the case with the earth's magnetic field, but as the ship gets closer to the earth the
interferometer would discover the ether at rotation through 180° from the position where the laser
radiates in the direction of the earth's rotation to the opposite direction. In both positions the
direction of the laser radiation is normal to the direction of the ship's motion, so that this motion has
no influence on the interferometer indication.
The above cited procedure would be accomplished with the airplane and interferometer inside it.
The interferometer has to be placed in the same position as in the space ship and it has to have the
laser radiation in the direction of the earth's rotation and then, after its rotation, in the opposite
direction.
The plane would fly along the Equator towards the West at the velocity of 1667 km/h. At that
velocity the shift at the interferometer with the side = 0.1 m, has to be

Which is very close to the double wave length of the HeNe laser radiation. If the airplane was flying
at a velocity of 840 km/h the shift would be equal to the wave length of the laser radiation, what
could be easily measured.
In order to reduce the influence of vibration in the plane on the measurement, it is the best that the
interferometer be compact, for example, in a shape of a glass cube whose edges are 10 - 15 cm.
Then the shift would be even greater for about 1.5 times.
Of course, the airplane flight may take place at some other place or with other velocity.
Another way of confirming the existence of the earth's ether by use of a new interferometer is by
flying over the South or North pole. The path of that airplane flying over a pole should be the same
as the path of space ship at flying over a pole. The beam of laser radiation has to be normal to the
direction of the airplane motion. In order to confirm the existence of the earth's ether it is not
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 28

necessary to rotate the interferometer. Changes in the interference state will appear at flying over
the pole, due to the change of the direction of the earth's rotation in relation to the airplane, that is in
relation to the interferometer.
If the existence of the earth's ether is confirmed it becomes clear that the light velocity relatively
to the source may be greater than the light velocity in the vacuum. This appears, for example, when
the earth's ether takes over the radiation from the direction of a star, which coincides with the
direction of the earth's motion. Then the light velocity in relation to its source - a star, is equal to the
sum of the incoming light velocity and the velocity of the earth motion. If the earth's motion is of
opposite direction from the direction of the incoming light, then the light velocity in the earth's ether,
in relation to the source of light, will be the difference between these two velocities. In both cases
the light velocity in the earth's ether will be 300000 km/s, as if nothing had happened. Actually, the
only change that takes place is the change of the light wavelength due to the Doppler shift, as in the
case of sound in the closed car discussed in chapter 3. So, if the earth did not have its ether, then the
speed of light, in relation to some point on earth, would depend on the direction of the motion of
that point in relation to the star, as the source of light. The same is true in the case of a light source
on the earth. To make this easier to understand, let us imagine the Michelson - Morley experiment
with sound waves in an open wagon and a closed one. In the experiment with the closed wagon we
would find out that there is no interference shift, no matter how fast the wagon traveled in relation
to the embankment and outer environment. That is so because the environment - air, which carries
sound, travels together in the closed wagon. However, on an open wagon there will be interference
shift of sound waves, even when the source of sound waves is placed on the open wagon, which we
can claim with certainty on the basis of well known experience. Thus, we come to the conclusion
that the result of Michelson - Morley experiment proves the existence of the earth's ether.
Confirming the existence of ether has an enormous and multiple significance. Among other things
it would present the end of the theory of special relativity, which is based on the constancy of light
velocity. If earth's ether exists, then the other ethers of a cosmic bodies exist too. All of them fill up
the cosmos and each one has an influence on light which propagates through them.

9. LORENTZ EXPLANATION OF THE NEGATIVE RESULTS OF MICHELSON'S

EXPERIMENT
The negative results of Michelson's experiment were a great surprise to all physicists of that time.
There were serious doubts about the result, which is testified to by the persistence with which the
experiment was repeated over many years.
Many physicists of that time tried to explain the reason for the negative result. Michelson and
Morley concluded, on the basis of the experiments, that the earth, which moves, draws along the
ether completely as Stockes's theory and Hertz electromagnetic theory had stated. But that
conclusion was in contradiction with many experiments, which tried to prove the hypothesis of the
partial drawing of the ether. Lodge, however had shown that the velocity of light does not change
near bodies which move fast, even when those bodies carry strong electric and magnetic fields.
A special place in explaining and analyzing the negative result of the experiment, belongs to
Lorentz, Fitzgerald and Poincare. Poincare, for example, was one of the greatest mathematicians
and theoretical physicists of that time. After analyzing the first and simple experiment performed by
Michelson, Lorentz gave a daring and unfounded hypothesis that: "Each body which has velocity
is shorter in the direction of motion for the factor
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 29

Actually if instead of the length in Eq. (5.7) we take then the length of the
optical paths in both branches of Michelson's interferometer will be equal, and the expected shift
will not occur, as was the case in the experiment. Fitzgerald and Poincare had the same idea about
the shortening. Therefore the contraction hypothesis is also called the Lorentz - Fitzgerald
contraction hypothesis. The shortening occurs only in the dimension aligned with the direction of
motion, whereas the transversal dimensions do not change. That shortening cannot allegedly be
discovered by any kind of Earthly observation because each ruler on the earth shortens in the same
proportion. An observer who was at rest position in the ether, and outside earth, would allegedly be
able to see this shortening. The whole earth would look flattened in the direction of motion and also
all its objects.
Thus, according to Lorentz, the objects which move through the ether, become shorter in the
direction of the motion for the contraction factor .
So, if the length of a body is when it is at rest, then the length of the body in motion is

(9.1)

is also called proper length.

Now let us take a look at how the theory of relativity looks at the Lorentz - Fitzgerald's
Contraction Hypothesis.
If we connect an unmoving coordinate system to the ether, and a moving system to the earth, then
the measuring system in Michelson's experiment, was unmoving in the system which moves and all
the measurements were done in that moving system. Accordingly, the shortening of the body
originates in the unmoving system in which observed body is at rest. However, according to the
theory of special relativity there is no shortening of the objects in the system, in which those objects
are at rest. Einstein goes further and says [6]:

Quotation: "According to the theory of relativity there is no any privileged coordinate system
which could give a motive for introducing the idea about ether. Consequently, there is no ethereal
wind nor any experiment which could show that it exists. Here the contraction of bodies in motion
follows, without any particular hypothesis, from both basic principles of the theory. At that for this
contraction, the motion only is not competent. For that motion is not able to give any sense, but for
the motion in relation to the chosen reference body. Because of this Michelson-Morley's
experimental mirror was not shortened in the relative system which moves together with the earth,
but only in the relative system which is unmoving in relation to the sun." End of quotation.

As we can see from the quoted text, Einstein did not agree with Lorentz's explanation of the
negative result of Michelson's experiment, that is he did not accept that the contraction hypothesis
could be applied in a system where the body is at rest, but only in a system where the body is
moving.
In conclusion, however, it is necessary to repeat that the Michelson - Morley measurement could
not give the facts about earth's motion through the ether. Measurements with the new interferometer
have also shown that there is no the earth motion, or more exactly the interferometer motion
relatively to the ether, and that there was not any contraction. This means that the Lorentz -
Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis has no basis, at least as regards the contraction in connection with
Michelson's experiment.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 30

10. THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION

In the endeavor to explain the negative results of Michelson's experiment, Lorentz derived the
famous transformation which is the predecessor and basis of the special theory of relativity, and was
named after him. With this transformation are given the new formulas for the coordinates and time,
which are valid for two systems, which mutually move translatory at velocity and without
acceleration. He published these formulas for the first time in 1904 in his work "Electromagnetic
phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light".
In the following text the Lorentz transformation is given in the way that Einstein presented it in
"The special and general relativity theory" [6]. This is done because the transformation is an
important matter upon which the special theory of relativity is based.

Quotation: "The simple derivation of the Lorentz transformation

At the relative position of the coordinate system in Fig. 10.1, the -axes constantly overlap in
both systems. In this case we can divide the problem in such a way, that first of all we will look at
events which are located on the -axis. Such events relative to the coordinate system are given
by abscissa and time , but relatively to the system is given by abscissa and time . To
find out and if and are given.

Fig. 10.1
The light signal which moves along the -axis propagated according to the equation
(10.1)
But since the same light signal has to be propagated at velocity relatively to also, then the
propagation toward can be expressed by a similar formula
(10.2)
The space-time points (events) which satisfy Eq. (10.1) must also satisfy Eq. (10.2). It will be, at
all events, when in general is fulfilled the relation
(10.3)
where is a constant, because according to Eq. (10.3) if is equal to zero, then must
be equal to zero too.
A wholly similar consideration applied to light rays which propagate along the negative -axis
gives the following condition
(10.4)
When we add, that is, subtract Eqs. (10.3) and (10.4), to make it simpler, the following constants
are introduced instead of constant and
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 31

we obtain

(10.5)

With this our task would be solved if and were known. These constants we determine by the
following consideration.
For the origin of the system it is always = 0, so, according to the first of Eqs. (10.5) is

[This doesn't function. The coordinates and are coordinates of the light ray (wave) position on
the -axis and -axis of the coordinate system and respectively, which has been pointed
out by Eqs. (10.1) and (10.2). In the starting position = 0 and then it must be = 0, = 0, and
= 0. Remark M.P.]
Let us mark by the velocity of the origin of the system which moves relatively to , then

(10.6)

[This doesn't function either. Eq. (10.6) has derived from the previous under the condition that

which can not be correct because it is in accordance to Eq. (10.1) and from there ,
that is not . Remark M.P.]
The same value for we obtain from Eq. (10.5) if we calculate, relatively to the velocity of
the second point of the system, or the velocity of the point of the system relatively to
pointed in the negative direction of -axis. In short, we can mark as the relative velocity of both
the systems.
Then according to the principle of relativity it is clear, that the unit length of the ruler which is at
rest relatively to , measured in the system, must be exactly the same as the unit length of the
ruler which is at rest relatively to the system, measured from the system. In order to see how
the points of the -axis look, observed from the system , it is necessary to make only an
"instantaneous photo" of the system from the ; this means that we will take for (the time of
the system ) certain value, for instance = 0. For this value = 0, from the first of Eqs. (10.5)
we obtain

The two points of the -axis, which are measured in the system have the distance = 1,
have, therefore, at our instantaneous photo the distance

(10.7)

But if we make a instantaneous photo from the system ( = 0), in consideration of Eq. (10.6),
we obtain from Eq. (10.5), if we eliminate

(10.8)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 32

From this we conclude that the two points of the -axis with distance 1 (relatively to the )
have the distance at our instantaneous photo

(10.9)

Since, upon above mentioned, both instantaneous photos must be equal, thus in Eq. (10.7)
must also be equal to in Eq. (10.9), so that we obtain

(10.10)

Eqs. (10.6) and (10.10) determine the constants and . By substitution in Eq. (10.5) we obtain
the first and fourth equations which are given in chapter 11

(10.11)

With this we derive the Lorentz transformation for events on the -axis. It satisfies the condition
(10.12)
The extension of this result on the events being done outside the -axis, results if, keeping Eq.
(10.11), we add equations

(10.13)

That the postulate about the constancy of light velocity in a vacuum was also satisfied by this, for
rays of light directed in whatever way desired, both for the system and for system , can be
seen in the following way.
Let the light signal be sent in the moment = 0 from the origin of the system . This signal
propagates according to equation
(10.14)

or squaring, according to equation

(10.15)
The law about the propagation of light requires, in connection with the postulate of relativity, that
the propagation of the same signal, judging from system , should be done according to an
adequate formula

or
(10.16)
In order to be Eq. (10.16) a consequence of Eq. (10.15) it must be
(10.17)
Since for the points on the -axis must be valid Eq. (10.12), it also must be = 1. It is easily
seen that the Lorenz transformation really satisfies Eq. (10.17) with = 1, because Eq. (10.17) is a
consequence of Eqs. (10.12) and (10.13) and therefore Eqs. (10.11) and (10.13) also. By this the
Lorenz transformation has been derived.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 33

Generalized Lorenz transformation can be characterized in the mathematical way as follows:

The Lorenz transformation expresses , , and by means of such linear homogenous
functions of , , and that the relation
(10.18)
is identically satisfied. This means that if on left instead of , and so on, we place their expression
in function of , , and , then the left side of Eq. (10.18) will identically agree with the right
side of the same equation." End of quotation.

In order to make the following challenges to some of the assertions made in the theory of
relativity easier to understand it is necessary to pay some attention to the following.
The coordinates , , and which, in the case of Lorentz transformation are given by the
expressions

(10.19)

meet the requirement that the relation (10.18) be identically satisfied.

If the expressions for , , and from Eqs. (10.19) are solved for , , and then
we have

(10.20)

The transformed coordinates given for and in dependence with and also fulfil the
requirement that relation (10.18) also be satisfied identically.
The coordinates of both systems are mutually dependent. That dependence we can determine by
using the starting conditions under which the Lorentz transformation is derived and which are given
in Eqs. (10.1) and (10.2). According to these equations and . Bearing this in mind
we can write

(10.21)

or

(10.22)

By the same procedure we get

(10.23)

or
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 34

(10.24)

From Eqs. (10.21) and (10.24) we get

(10.25)

11. SOME OBSERVATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE LORENTZ

TRANSFORMATION

Besides the earlier stated remarks, there are some other observations to be made.
In deriving the transformation, Einstein started from an equation for the propagation of a plane
light wave [Eqs. (10.1) and (10.2)]. So he derived Eqs. (10.11). After that he demonstrated that the
given transformation also satisfies in case of the equation for spherical light wave propagation. And
indeed, when we substitute the expression for and from Eqs. (10.11) in Eq. (10.18) then we
obtain identical satisfaction of Eq. (10.18). But if we make substitution in the equation for the plane
wave , then there is no identical satisfaction.
Thus, substitution of the equation for and from Eq. (10.11) in the equation for the plane
wave yields

Thus equation is not identically satisfied that is, by use of the Lorentz
transformation the invariability of equation of the plane wave is not achieved. With that is denied
the first principle of special relativity which runs as follows: "Each general law of nature, which is
valid relatively to the coordinate system must be equally valid relative to the coordinate system
, which moves with uniform translation relatively to the system ."
However, in case of a spherical wave by the above substitution the identical satisfaction is
achieved.

For the area of the light wave sphere, which moves opposite to the direction of the system's
direction of motion, we obtain, using transformation, the following equations
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 35

(11.1)

In this case the coordinate system moves to the left along the negative -axis at velocity
relative to and the light wave moves at velocity to the right, that is in the positive direction of
the -axis. Their relative velocity should be , but it is not so. By dividing presented Eq.
(11.1) we have . This is mathematically well done. The passed way was increased, and
also was increased local time , so the quotient remained the same, unlike the case given by Eq.
(10.11) where the way is reduced and also the local time . When we substitute and from
Eq. (11.1) into Eq. (10.18) we also obtain the identical satisfaction, which means that the
requirement for invariability has been satisfied.
The coordinates , , and , , are coordinates of the position of the light wave
in the unmoving reference coordinate system , and in the moving coordinate system
respectively, and cannot be the coordinates of some other point out of the place of the
spherical or of the plane observed light wave.

Fig. 11.1 Fig. 11.2

Figs. 11.1 and 11.2 present in the and in the plane the position of the same spherical
wave in the times and , that is and . As it can be seen in Fig. 11.1

that is

and

that is

These relations are also valid for the cases in Fig. 11.2, where the position of the same spherical
wave and coordinate system in time is given, so we get from that
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 36

that is

and

that is

If propagation of the spherical wave is observed only along the -axis, as it will be further in the
text, then the above given equations will take the following form
(11.2)
so that
(11.3)

We will come back to these equations later on, when we will consider the contraction of space
and dilatation of time, where it was wrong taken that and .
The initial state is the moment when the spherical or the plane light wave and the moving
coordinate system begin to move from the origin of the unmoving reference coordinate system
. Then it is = 0, = 0, = 0 and = 0. If this phenomenon is observed in the space then
also are = 0, = 0, = = 0 and = = 0.
So, the coordinates of the origin in the systems and cannot be coordinates , , and
, , except in the initial state, and because of that it may be said that the Lorenz
transformation in regard to the determination of coefficients and in Eq. (10.5) has not been
derived correctly.

12. DERIVING THE TRANSFORMATION OF COORDINATES BASED ON THE

SATISFACTION OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR INVARIABILITY

As was mentioned before, the Galilean transformation maintains the invariability of equation of
the basic laws of mechanical motion in inertial systems. However, this is not the case for equation
of the laws in electromagnetism, so new transformations have to be found, which are derived from
the condition of invariability of certain equations in the given area. Some of these examples will be
treated in the further text.
The propagation of the spherical electromagnetic (or sound) wave has been given in a system
by the following equation
(12.1)
If we suppose that the system moves continuously and translatory in relation to so that its
-axis moves along the -axis, whereas the -axis remains parallel to the -axis and the -
axis parallel to the -axis, we obtain the transformational formulas as in one-dimensional case.
The invariability of Eq. (12.1) for the propagation of an electromagnetic spherical wave requires
that the propagation of the given wave can be presented by the same equation in a system as
well, which would then be as follows
(12.2)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 37

Let the transformational formula for the coordinate be

(12.3)
where is coefficient which is determined by the comparison.
For the coordinates and the transformational formulas are

(12.4)

Let the transformational formula for time be

(12.5)
where and are the coefficients which are also determined by the comparison.
When the substitution of the expression for , , and is done in Eq. (12.2) we obtain

or

(12.6)

Comparison of the coefficients of , , and in Eqs. (12.1) and (12.6) gives

(12.7)

Solving Eqs. (12.7) we obtain the coefficients

(12.8)

Substitution of these expressions in Eqs. (12.3) and (12.5) gives relativistic formulas for the
coordinates and time which Lorentz derived

(12.9)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 38

Thus, we obtained the same equations for a case of propagation of the spherical wave as in case of
Lorentz transformation, but in a more correct mathematical way.
This does not exclude the possibility of deriving the other transformations as well. For the need of
further consideration we will derive two new transformations for the case of spherical wave
propagation and two for the case of plane wave propagation. As before, for the spherical wave we
will use Eqs. (12.1) and (12.2) and the following transformational formulas

(12.10)

In the same way, as in previous case, in obtaining Eqs. (12.9) we find expressions for coefficients
, and

(12.11)

so that

(12.12)

As in case of relativistic Eqs. (11.1) it is also obtained that

(12.13)

In Eqs. (12.12) and (12.13) the velocity is not limited to the velocity , so, it is allowed to be
.
We obtain the fifth transformation of coordinates on the basis of the requirement of invariability
for the equation of the plane wave so that the relation
(12.14)
is identically satisfied, and transformational equations

(12.15)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 39

As before we determine coefficients and by the comparison using Eqs. (12.14) and (12.15)
which gives

(12.16)

so that

(12.17)

In these equations the velocity is also not limited, so it can be .

Eq. (12.17) most clearly describes the propagation of a light plane wave (or a sound plane wave)
in an inertial system. In them lengths are "clear", which means that they are not multiplied by any
coefficient. The times are given by simple formulas. Time is smaller than time for a coefficient
( ), which is, from the standpoint of a light waves propagation, clear in the sense of physics,
if the flow of the events is observed in the direction of a wave motion. For example, if the system
is moved at velocity then its origin would always be at the same light wave ( = 0).
Then the time would stop flowing in that coordinate system, because there would be no change in
the electromagnetic situation. From the direction of the origin of the system no electromagnetic
phenomena, such as a light pulse, succeeds in reaching that system and they always stay at the same
distance, like the others in front of them. Under these conditions it seems that everything has
stopped, in a sense of propagation of the electromagnetic waves in the direction of motion.
For example, if then the number of electromagnetic waves which pass through the origin
of the system are two times smaller than it would be if the system were at rest in relation to
the system . Because of this the number of events is two times smaller, so it seems as if time
passes more slowly. This can be of great significance in regard to the life time of some phenomena
or things.
For example let us suppose, that a rocket starts to fly from a point at speed toward a
point , with the intention of destroying some target. Let the system in the rocket be programmed
to activate an explosive when it receives 20 radio pulses from the earth, which are sent there every
second. The question is: What is the life time of the rocket from the moment it receives the first
pulse at point , till the explosion and its destruction? Counting the pulses we could say that it is
20 seconds, since 20 pulses altogether are sent from the earth, that is, one pulse per second.
However, since the rocket flies at speed it will receive 20 pulses and activate the explosive,
only, after 40 seconds. According to the rocket's clock, which is synchronized with the radio pulse
receiver, and which is programmed to count time according to received number of pulses on the
earth at rest, the life time of the rocket is 20 seconds. But, naturally, if the clock was set to work
independently, that is at its own speed, it would show the actual life time, which would be, as we
said 40 seconds.
If the rocket flew in the opposite direction, from the point towards the point , at the same
speed as in the previous case, then the actual life time of the rocket would be 13.3 sec, and the
counter - synchrony clock in the rocket would again show 20 seconds.
The second Eq. (12.17) can show the time of the past. So if , the coordinate system
goes in front of the light wave (in the same way as the supersonic airplane flies in front of the
sound). In its way it catches up with and outruns the waves had started earlier, and gives the picture
of the past. In such a way, for example, it could reach the rays of sun's light reflected from a
warrior's armor at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, making possible for the observer in that coordinate
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 40

system to see the battle but in reverse, as when we rewind a film tape. This is the sense of the
negative time in Eq. (12.17).
The following transformation number six, is also derived by using Eq. (12.14) of the plane wave
propagation and transformational formulas

(12.18)

After determining the coefficients and by comparison we obtain

(12.19)

Besides the given transformations, others of a similar form can be derived as well. Lorentz gave
one coordinates transformation. However, as it has been shown, there are the other transformations
with which is achieved an identical satisfaction of relation connected with propagation of a
spherical light wave

or relation connected with propagation of a plane light wave

when left instead of , , and we put their expression depending on , , and .

This requirement for an identical satisfaction was emphasized by Einstein himself in the earlier
quoted citation "The simple derivation of Lorentz transformation". All transformations which
achieve the invariability of equation of propagation of the spherical or of the plane wave are of the
same validity.
With the transformed coordinates in case of a spherical wave, there is no identical satisfaction of
relation connected with the plane wave propagation. Also with transformed
coordinates in case of a plane wave, identical satisfaction of relation

connected with the spherical light wave propagation cannot be obtained.

A spherical wave appears in case of radiation sources of very small dimensions, and the plane
wave appears at a collimated radiation. Michelson and Morley's experiment and Fizeau's test were
performed by using plane waves. All interferometric measurements are made by use of plane waves,
because for a such measurements it is necessary to have a collimated radiation.
Finally, before we consider the basic characteristics of the derived transformations, we present
them together, for the sake of easier comparison.
a) Lorentz transformation

(12.20)

b) The new transformation, in the further text transformation No. 1

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 41

(12.21)

c) The new transformation, in the further text transformation No. 2

(12.22)

d) The new transformation, in the further text transformation No. 3

(12.23)

e) The new transformation, in the further text transformation No. 4

(12.24)

f) The new transformation, in the further text transformation No. 5

(12.25)

The Lorentz transformation and transformation No. 1, which has been derived from the Lorentz
transformation, exclude the possibility that velocity of the coordinate system can be greater
than the speed of light and all other transformations allow that possibility.
Transformation No. 2 has one paradox. The origin of the system even at velocity higher
than the velocity of light, stays inside the sphere formed by the spherical wave, which propagates at
the velocity of light from the origin of the system . This means, for example, that the light wave
moves at the velocity of light in the positive direction of the -axis, and after it the origin of
system moves in the same direction, at a much higher velocity than that of light, but for all that
never reaches that light wave. So, the origin of the system cannot go out of the sphere of that
spherical light wave, in spite of its own so high velocity.
Transformation No. 3 contains another paradox. The origin of system can leave the sphere,
formed by the spherical light wave, if it moves in the negative direction of the -axis and with
higher velocity than the velocity of light. Naturally, for that, the light wave observed moves in a
positive direction of -axis. When the origin of system has left the sphere, but
backwards.
Another paradox is that the relative velocity, between the light wave and the origin of system ,
which move in opposite directions, is equal to the velocity of light even when system moves at
an unlimited velocity , that is
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 42

In fact, this paradox occurs with all transformations, but with some, for example with the Lorentz
transformation, the speed is limited to a value less than . Thus, according to Einstein, it turns
out that the relative speed of a light ray apex and the origin of the system do not depend on the
system's direction of motion relatively to the ray's direction of motion. That is in conflict with
common sense and human experience. In nature there are no such paradoxes, so we can put the
question whether the theory with such paradoxes and postulates can describe and interpret physical
processes. The answer to this question is certainly negative.
From the examples given above we can see that it is not the physical process of motion in
question, but pure mathematics, where the variables, time and length, are defined and changed in
case of necessity without any relation to real space and time, with the exception of transformation
No. 4 where this connection can be established in some way.

13. THE INFLUENCE OF WATER MOTION ON THE SPEED OF LIGHT

(FIZEAU'S TEST)

The results of Fizeau's test are cited as the strongest proof of the correctness of the special theory
of relativity, something that Einstein persistently asserted personally. Therefore, the method with
which test was performed and the application of that test's result as confirmation of the theory of
special relativity should be carefully analyzed.
This test is of fundamental importance, one of the most important tests performed in the 19th
century. The results of the test have remained unexplained to date and the consequences are far-
reaching. The aim of the test was to find out how water motion influences the velocity of light
propagating through it. It was closely connected with research into the characteristics of the ether
and its connection with moving transparent bodies.
Fizeau was the first to perform the test in 1851. It was later repeated by Michelson and others.
The measurement was based on measurement of the interference shift between two light beams
transmitted through unmoving water and moving water. A scheme of the experiment is given in Fig.
13.1.

Fig. 13.1
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 43

The beam of light comes from the radiation source to the semi-transparent mirror 1, and there
it is split up into two identical beams according to intensity. One beam ( ) goes through the pipe 2
with water, in the direction of mirror 3, where it is reflected to another semi-transparent mirror 4
and after reflection on it reaches the eye of the observer. The other beam ( ) goes toward mirror 5
where it is reflected and passes through the water in pipe and semi-transparent mirror 4 towards the
eye of the observer. In such a way the observer can see an interference image in the shape of fringes,
whose initial state of position and distance is established through unmoving water. After that water
is brought to a state of motion and the shift of the interference fringes is established.
In one variant of the test, the length of the pipe was 1.5 m and the speed of the water motion in the
pipe was 7 m/s.
The expected shift of the interference fringes would be easy to calculate, if a simple assumption of
the mutual relation between the ether and the water is made. The velocity of light in unmoving
water is smaller than the velocity of light in the ether, that is in vacuum. This decrease is determined
by the index of water refraction or where is the light velocity in water and
is the index of water refraction.
In relation to the coordinate system connected to the unmoving pipes and mirrors, the light
velocity will be equal on the paths and if the ether is not drawn by the water and different if
the ether is drawn in by the water. In the second case the rays and will have different passing
times through the water, and , because the velocity of light in relation to the pipe is ( )
and ( ), where is the speed of the water motion. Thus

(13.1)

and the time difference of the light passing through the water

(13.2)

This difference of time corresponds to the difference of the wave paths of the two beams

(13.3)

or expressed by a wave length

(13.4)

If the water does not draw the ether, then we have = 0 because . In that case there is no
shift in the interference fringes. If the ether is wholly drawn by the water then that shift should have
to be . If the water only partially draws in the ether then the light velocity in relation to the pipe
would be , where is a coefficient of the drawing of the ether by the water. Then the
shift would be

(13.5)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 44

Fizeau, Michelson and others discovered that shift, but its magnitude was about two times smaller
than expected, that is, it was = 0.46 by Fizeau's measurement and = 0.434 ± 0.02 according to
[12] at considerably later measurement. In case of water we have

On the basis of that experimental result Fizeau then came to an important conclusion: it seems
that the ether is partially drawn by the moving water, where the pulling coefficient with a great
degree of accuracy is equal to ( ). As has been said, is the index of light refraction in
water. Thus

(13.6)

So, the velocity of light through moving water in the direction of water motion is

(13.7)

and the light velocity in the opposite direction

(13.8)

Fresnel supposed that the ether passes through a body, and that it is denser inside the body than
outside. According to Fresnel is the density of an ether in vacuum, and is its density in the
body, so

The ether is treated as a fluid, and light according to the laws of mechanical motion. On that basis,
in a complicated manner, he derived equations for the velocity of light in moving bodies, which
indicated that such bodies partially drag the ether with them. The magnitude of that drag is given as
a coefficient whose value is the same as Fizeau's ( ).
On the other hand, Hertz stated that bodies completely draw the ether along with them. This
notion was disproved by experiment. However, the assertions about a partial pulling of an ether also
fail, since one material can have different light refraction indexes for different light wave lengths
and because of that for each wave length the ether would be drawn to a different degree, which is
clearly not acceptable.
According to the theory of relativity, the velocity of light in a body which moves at speed in
relation to an observer, is determined according to the relativistic principal on the addition of speeds.
Relativistic equation for the addition and subtraction of speeds and , which will be analyzed in
detail later (chapters 19 and 20), in the general form reads

(13.9)

So if is the light velocity in unmoving water, then the relativistic sum of speeds
and of the same direction is
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 45

(13.10)

and the speeds difference, when this water motion is in the opposite direction of the light motion
direction

(13.11)

which comes very close to the Fizeau's result. However, relativistic equations for the addition and
subtraction of speeds in the given shape are not valid in this case, because they are derived for
vacuum, and here the mediums in the coordinate systems and through which the light wave
propagates are different. In those mediums the light velocity is different even under the condition of
relative rest. Because of this the relativistic equations for addition and subtraction of speeds cannot
be applied to Fizeau's test, that is, to explain Fizeau's results. This problem will be considered later
on, in detail in chapter 19.2.
Many eminent scientists offered a great number of explanations. However the right explanation
has not yet been given, an explanation without any remarks based on already known facts.

14. A NEW EXPLANATION OF FIZEAU'S TEST RESULT

As is well known light moves at a lower velocity through transparent bodies than through vacuum.
The velocity of light decreases in inverse proportion to the index of refraction, and is expressed in
the following way

(14.1)

The question is: "Why does light propagate more slowly through a material environment than
through a vacuum?" The following may be an answer to this question.
During motion through a transparent substance photons are absorbed by that substance (atom or
molecule), to be emitted later on, after a very short time, and after some time they are absorbed
again, and so ceaselessly, until they leave the environment. The emission of a photon is stimulated
by another photon, which comes across an excited atom or molecule. In this way the direction of
motion of the emitted photon and the photon which stimulates this emission is the same. Because of
this the direction of radiation through transparent substances does not change. This phenomena is
well known in the case of lasers as a stimulated emission of radiation.
The total period of time the photon spends in the states of absorption is proportional to the index
of refraction of the body. The total period of time the photon takes to pass through the transparent
body is the sum of the time of the photon motion through that body at a velocity which is equal to
the velocity of light in vacuum and the time of the photon's detention in a state of absorption. From
there we have
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 46

(14.2)

where is the total period of time that the photon needs to pass through the transparent body, is
the time that the photon needs to pass through the body at the velocity of light in vacuum, is the
total period of photon detention in a state of absorption and is the length of the photon's path
through that body.
Using Eqs. (14.1) and (14.2) we obtain

(14.3)

(14.4)

What happens to the velocity of light in a transparent body when it is in motion? In order to give
an answer it is necessary to analyze the process of the photon's motion through a moving body.
Fig. 14.1 shows a photon's motion through water which moves at speed . For a greater part of
the way, the photon passes as in a vacuum in the form of radiation and at a velocity which is equal
to its velocity in vacuum. On the other considerably shorter part of the way, the photon is carried in
an absorbed state at speed , that is, at the speed of the water which carries it. As can be seen in
Fig. 14.1, the photon is carried in the direction of the water's motion from position 1 (the
position of photon absorption) to position 2 (the position of photon emission). This process is
repeated until the photon leaves the pipe.

Fig. 14.1
During the photon motion through the pipe containing water the layer of the water, whose
thickness , flows out in a lateral direction, and the photon does not succeed in reaching and
passing trough it, so the shortening of the path on which the process of absorption and emission will
not happen is given by equation
(14.5)

For the same reason there is a shortening of the absorption time . This shortening of the
absorption time is proportional to the thickness of the out flowing water layer , like the total
absorption time is proportional to the total length of the water column, that is, the pipe length
containing water through which light rays pass, so we have

(14.6)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 47

From Eqs. (14.3), (14.4), (14.5) and (14.6) we have

(14.7)

and

(14.8)

From Eqs. (14.1), (14.3), (14.5), (14.6) and (14.7) it follows that

(14.9)

During the free motion through the water the photons (from emission - the position 2 in Fig. 14.1,
to repeated absorption - the position 1 in Fig. 14.1) do not pass the way they passed in the absorbed
state. Because of this, the time shortening of the free passing in a form of radiation is
proportional to the way , into which the photons have been carried in an absorbed state. This
means that it is proportional to the total period of time that the photons spend in an absorbed state
and to the speed at which they are carried - the water speed. So from Eqs. (14.4) and (14.8) we have

(14.10)

The total shortening of time that the photon takes to pass through the water, which moves in the
direction of the photon motion, on the way length is

(14.11)

Fig. 14.2 shows the motion of a photon through water flowing in the opposite direction to the
motion of the photon.

Fig. 14.2
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 48

We can see that, in this case, the time is increased for , in which the photon is in an
absorbed state, due to the arrival of a new water layer during the time the photon passes through the
pipe containing water. Also the time of the photon's free passage through the water in the form
of radiation is increased for . This appears due to an increase in the length of the photon's path
through the water, because of its return, in an absorbed state, in the direction of the water's motion.
Because of this, the photon must once again travel this additional distance, which has already been
passed.
So, the time taken by a photon, to pass downstream, through the pipe with water, is shortened and
the time needed to pass upstream is increased.
The increasing of times passing , and are calculated in a similar way to the
shortening of times , and , in the previous case. At that it is taken

In this way we get

(14.12)

and

(14.13)

and from there

(14.14)

Using Eqs. (14.11) and (14.14) we find that the ray, which propagates downstream, reaches the
interference shift measurer before the ray which moves up stream for the time

(14.15)

Considering that we can write

(14.16)

This time difference corresponds to the shift of the ray relative to the ray which is measured
by the interferometer
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 49

(14.17)

From this it results that the speed of light in water, which is moving in the same direction as that
of the light is defined by the equation

(14.18)

And the speed of light travelling in the opposite direction to the water flow is defined by the
equation

(14.19)

So, according to the given postulate Eq. (14.17) has been derived in order to calculate the
interference shift. Fizeau's test completely confirmed the correctness of that shift calculation by
using Eq. (14.17). This is the confirmation of the correctness of the previously given hypothesis that
light propagates more slowly in a transparent body than in a vacuum, because of the time which the
photons spend in the state of absorption on their way through that body, when their motion in the
form of radiation is stopped.
The new hypothesis about light propagation through moving transparent bodies and this
calculation which proves the correctness of that hypothesis, exclude any connection of the ether
with the speed of light in moving transparent bodies, as Fizeau, Fresnel and Hertz asserted.
In estimating the reliability of the given hypothesis we should bear the following in mind. The
law on the conservation of momentum is not satisfied when considering the transition of a photon
from air ( = 1) to water ( = 4 / 3) and vice versa

(14.20)

Because the speed of the photon changes on transition from one substance to the other but its
frequency remains the same.
If we treat the photon as a corpuscle then the law on the conservation of energy cannot be
satisfied either, since the kinetic energy of the corpuscle is proportionate to the second power of the
corpuscle's velocity.
However, according to the hypothesis given above about light propagation through a transparent
substance, both the above laws are satisfied in the transition of a photon from one transparent
substance to another. In this hypothesis the speed of the photon in every transparent substance,
while the photon is not absorbed, is equal to the speed of light in a vacuum. The satisfaction of
these two laws is one more proof of the correctness of the given hypothesis.

15. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

Einstein says that the theory of relativity is the theory of principles. In order to understand it one
must be acquainted with the principles it is based on.
Further on in the text we will present those principles, as well as the comments which Einstein
made himself.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 50

The first principle is: "Each general law of nature, which is valid relatively to the coordinate
system must be equally valid relative to the coordinate system , which moves with uniform
translation relatively to ".
The second principle upon which the special theory of relativity is based is "The constancy of the
velocity of light" which reads as follows: "Light always has one definite velocity of propagation in
a vacuum, which is independent of the condition of the light source's motion", and also "The speed
of light is the same in all systems whose mutual motion is with uniform translation".
The third principle is the principle of relativity in relation to the direction which is: "All directions
in space or all configurations of the Cartesian (Descartes) coordinate system are physically
equivalent".
The first principle goes one step further in relation to the principle of relativity in a narrow sense,
which refers to Galilean (inertial) coordinate system, saying: "If is a Galileo (inertial) coordinate
system, then any other coordinate system will also be a Galileo system, if relatively to
moves with uniform translation. For both these Galilean systems, Newtonian law of mechanics is
valid". Generalizing further Einstein says: "If is a coordinate system, which relatively to
moves uniformly and without rotation, then natural phenomena relative to and relative to ,
happen according to exactly the same general laws".
The Galileo transformation did not satisfy the requirement for invariability of equations for laws
in the field of electromagnetism, in other words the first principle was not valid for the field of
electromagnetism. This is why a solution for that field was searched for as well. This solution was
found by Lorentz using a coordinate transformation, where time became the fourth coordinate. For
that, he introduced a new comprehension of space and time by denying the hypotheses of classical
mechanics which are:
a) The spatial distance between two points of a rigid body, does not depend on the state of
motion of a reference body, and
b) The time interval between two events is independent from the state of motion of a reference
body.
Simply said, in the coordinate system which moves with uniform translation relative to the
coordinate system , Lorentz introduced a new time which he called "the local time". But in
reference to the distance between two points of the same rigid body he applied the hypothesis of the
body's contraction in the direction of motion. The magnitude of that contraction depends on the
speed of the body's motion relative to the ether. In this way he made it possible for the first
principle to be universal, and applicable to all natural laws. Einstein accepted the Lorentz
transformation, but made a change in the understanding of contraction of the body. According to
him, the contraction is in the coordinate system in which the body moves. According to Lorentz, the
contraction is in the coordinate system in which the body is at rest, and appears due to the body's
motion relative to ether.
The second relativity principle was the result of the Lorentz transformation and here is what
Einstein said about it [6]:

Quotation: "In the following example we can clearly see that the law on light propagation in
vacuum is satisfied by the Lorentz transformation, as for the body of reference , so for the body
of reference . Let the light signal be sent along the positive -axis and let the light propagation
be according to equation
(15.1)
Consequently at speed . According to the Lorentz transformation this simple connection between
and conditions the connection between and too. Really, the first and fourth equation of
the Lorentz transformation gives the following when we place instead of
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 51

(15.2)

Thus, by division arrives directly

(15.3)
According to this equation, light is propagated relative to the system . The result is that the
velocity of light relative to system is also equal to . It is similar with the light rays which
move in any other direction. Naturally, one should not wonder at this, because the Lorentz
equations were derived on just that hypothesis." End of quotation.

With the second principle of relativity we have two different cases. The first case is about the
motion of a light source and the speed of light and it is said that the speed of light propagation does
not depend on the speed of the light source motion. This is a correct claim if that speed of light does
not in relation to the moving source of light. The same case is also valid for the case of propagation
of sound waves. Of course, it would be different if light had corpuscular nature. Then ballistic laws
would be valid, and the speed of light propagation would depend on the speed of the light source.
In the second case it is claimed that the speed of light is the same in all inertial systems which
move relatively. So, the speed of light in the system which moves relatively to the light source is the
same as in the system which does not move relatively to that source. Here is what Einstein says in
reference to that [6]:

Quotation: "It is natural that this process of light propagation, as with any other, must be put in
relation to some reference rigid body (coordinate system). As a reference body we will choose again
a railway embankment. We will imagine that the air above the embankment has been evacuated.
One ray of light is sent along the embankment, whose wave front relative to the embankment will
move at velocity . Let our railway wagon travel along the track at speed and in the same
direction in which the light ray propagates, but of course much more slowly. We put the question:
"What is, relative to the wagon, the velocity of the light propagation?" is the required light
velocity relative to the wagon and for it is valid

It results that the velocity of the light ray propagation relative to the wagon is lower than .
This result is contradictory to the principle of relativity. According to the principle of relativity,
the law on light propagation in vacuum has to be equally read as any other law of nature, as relative
to the wagon so relative to the embankment. It seems, by our consideration, impossible. Since the
ray moves at velocity relatively to the embankment, it seems that relative to the railway wagon
the propagation must be different, against the principle of relativity.
In consideration of this dilemma, it seems inevitable that we must surrender either the relativity
principle or the simple law of light propagation in vacuum." End of quotation.

So, for the sake of the principle of relativity, Einstein also rejects the well known law on light
propagation. In relation to that, let us examine the next case more closely.
Let us suppose that the wagon moves at speed . In one second the light pulse passes 300000
km and the wagon following it passes 100000 km, so the distance between them is 200000 km, and
not 300000 km, as the special theory of relativity states. If the speed of the wagon is almost equal to
the velocity of light, then the wagon and the light pulse would move along together. Then the speed
of the light pulse relative to the wagon would be almost equal to zero.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 52

What is the solution to this obvious disagreement? The solution lies in mathematics, that is, in the
transformation of the coordinates and time. By accepting the fact that the propagation time and the
coordinates of the position of the light wave in system depend on its velocity , Lorentz made
it possible to take the velocity instead of a real relative velocity . For this, it is enough
simply to make time dependent on speed , which can be seen in the previously presented
transformation No. 4, in case of a plane wave given in Eq. (12.24). This time is not the actual
time; it is a kind of "local time", as Lorentz treated it.
If after some time the distance between the wagon and the apex of the light ray is , and if the
wagon is at rest, then the apex of the light ray moves away from the wagon at speed , so we
have . However, if the wagon moves at speed following the light pulse then the wave
front or apex of that ray moves away from the wagon at speed so that .
But because of the insistence that, in this case, must be substituted for , then time has to
change. Therefore it must be
(15.4)
And from there

(15.5)

Which is the same as in Eq. (12.17) of transformation No. 4.

So, in the new coordinate system a higher relative velocity was taken than the actual, but for
that a shorter time than the actual was taken, so the final result [ ] remained the
same.
At the end it is very important to emphasize and not to forget, because it will be necessary to later
consideration, that Einstein himself emphasized that light propagates along the -axis according to
equation . In other words the coordinate is the coordinate of the light ray apex, but not
some point between the origin and the light ray apex or the front of the light wave propagation. In
Eq. (15.2) he substituted by . Also, it should be emphasized and not forgotten that he did the
same for the coordinate system , namely he took that , so, from there

(15.6)

Which is correct and in accordance with the second principle of the special theory of relativity.
The third principle requires the existence of homogenous and isotropic space, because only in that
case are all directions equivalent and there is invariability of equations of the laws of mechanical
motion in the inertial systems and with the Lorentz transformation, also invariability of equations of
the laws in the sphere of electromagnetism.
Later on we will see that Einstein did not respect the third principle in application of his equation
for addition and subtraction of the speeds in order to explain the result of Fizeau's test. In general he
did not respect the other principles and postulates which he had himself declared.

16. THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE VELOCITY

In regard to the maximum possible velocity, Einstein says:

Quotation: "In the theory of relativity the velocity has the role to be the ultimate speed, which
cannot be reached, let alone exceeded by any real body.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 53

This role of the velocity , as the ultimate speed, results, already, by itself, from equations of the
Lorentz transformation. And actually they lose their sense if is chosen so to be higher than .
For the speed it would be , and for a higher speed the square root would be
imaginary [6]." End of quotation.

So, according to Einstein, the velocity plays the role of an unreachable velocity because of
equations of the Lorentz transformation. He did not give any other reason. However, we shall see
later on that he did not respect this postulate about maximum speed.
In order to come to a real conclusion about justification of the quoted assertion it is necessary to
carry out analysis of equations of Lorentz and others (new) transformations from the standpoint of
maximum possible velocity.
Equations of the Lorentz transformation (12.20) and the transformation No. 1 (12.21) derived
from Lorentz, exclude the possibility of the existence of a velocity higher than that of light.
According to them, the speed can only be lower than the velocity of light in vacuum. On the
contrary, but in consideration of the square root in the denominator of quoted equations, an unreal
situation would arise, because, there is no real number as a result of the square root of the negative
number. As we have seen, Einstein applied this to all phenomena in nature, stating that in nature
there are no higher speeds than the velocity of light. It has become the fundamental principle in the
theory of relativity. The basis for such a firm attitude is the square root in the denominator of
equations which in that case really limits the speed to the value of the velocity of light. However,
a question is put: "Can this square root, which is only a mathematical magnitude, in the given case,
be the reason for attributing such serious limitations to nature?" The answer to this question is given
by analyzing the following equations of transformations.
The equations of the transformation No. 2 (12.22) did not put any limitations in regard to the
maximum possible speed , which means that it can be higher than the velocity of light, that is, it
allows .
The equations of the transformation No. 3 (12.23) which are similar to the equations of
transformation No. 2, also has no limitation to the maximum possible speed, so it is possible that
.
The equations of the transformation No. 4 (12.24) and No. 5 (12.25) derived from the condition
given for the invariability of the equation for propagation of the plane light wave also has no
limitations of the maximum possible speed , so they also allow . In the equations of these
two transformations at is = 0 and = 0, while and are not defined magnitudes and
can be any real number, because they are the result of the division of zero by zero.
Thus, according to the above presented, it cannot be concluded that there are real reasons for the
hypothesis that the highest speed in nature is the velocity of light in vacuum. It would be more
realistic to lead out the conclusion that greater speeds are possible, both in the macro and micro
world. However, the characteristics of the equations which are derived by transformations cannot be
proof for the first nor for the second assertion.
As regards relative speeds higher than the velocity of light, for example, the speed between the
wagon and a light wave, when they move in the opposite direction, they exist at all events in spite
of the opposite assertion by the special theory of relativity. After all, in his first paper on relativity

[2] Einstein used the expression in the third equation of the paper ( ), and thus,
at the very beginning of his work on the theory of relativity he himself negated his postulate that the
speed of light in vacuum is the maximum possible speed in nature.
At the base of transformation No. 2 it could be, for example, taken that the body mass in motion is
given by formula
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 54

(16.1)

Instead of the already very well known Lorentz formula which many people wrongly ascribe to
Einstein

(16.2)

with remark that the electron mass, calculated according to the first formula, better agrees to the
electron mass calculated by formula M. Abraham [M. Abraham, Ann. d. Physik 10, 105, 1903.], K.
Schwarzschild [K. Schwarzschild, Göttinger Nachr. 245, 1905.], A. Sommerfeld [A. Sommerfeld,
Göttinger Nachr. 303, 999, 1904.], derived on the base of the electronic theory

(16.3)

As also with experimentally established electron mass at motion by W. Kaufmann. [W. Kaufmann,
Gessel, Wise, Gött. Nachr. 143, 291, 1901.; Ann. d. Physik 19, 487; 20, 639, 1906.]
Calculated values of the coefficient , and are given in Table 16.1. As is seen
for all given values of the speeds of the electron, where is the speed of
electron, and is the speed of light.
It is interesting to note that the best agreement of calculated masses, in motion for speeds around
, is according to Eqs. (16.3) and (16.4)

(16.4)

with the note that the Eq. (16.4) is based on the transformation of coordinates, which satisfies the
requirement for invariability, the same as Eq. (16.2) is based on the Lorentz transformation of
coordinates.
In reality neither of the said relativistic equations for mass in motion is based on the
transformation of coordinates, but the form of each of them reminds us in some way of a certain
transformation of coordinates. We shall show later that this is also true, for example, for the Eq.
(16.2).

Table 16.1

0.1 1.005038 1.004026 1.004988 -1.0·10-3 -9.6·10-4

0.2 1.020621 1.016424 1.019804 -4.2·10-3 -3.4·10-3
0.3 1.048285 1.038232 1.044031 -1.0·10-2 -5.8·10-3
0.4 1.091090 1.071478 1.077033 -2.0·10-2 -5.6·10-3
0.5 1.154701 1.119796 1.118034 -3.5·10-2 +1.8·10-3
0.6 1.250000 1.189862 1.166190 -6.0·10-2 +2.4·10-2
0.7 1.400280 1.295068 1.220656 -1.1·10-1 +7.4·10-2
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 55

0.8 1.666667 1.467369 1.280625 -2.0·10-1 +1.9·10-1

0.9 2.294157 1.815553 1.345362 -4.8·10-1 +4.7·10-1

Neutral particles in motion do not create an electromagnetic field around themselves, as is the
case with electrically charged particles in motion. Therefore, the speed of motion of neutral
particles should not be limited.
Finally we can conclude that the assertion that the maximum speed should be limited to
magnitude (the velocity of light in a vacuum) has some sense only when considering the motion
of electrified particles relative to an ether in which that motion takes place.

17. CONTRACTION OF SPACE

At first man studied the space around him to the limit of horizon where the sky is joined with the
earth. In the course of time, after many years of evolution he widened that horizon to billions and
more light years and narrowed it down to a dimension of elementary particles. On that long journey
there were a great jumps ahead, and sideways as well, which slowed down the rhythm of man's
penetration to the unknown. The theory of relativity has both possibilities, to be the great
penetration to the unknown, and to be the sideways which turns aside the course of research and in
that way slows it up.
The question of space and time is of fundamental importance, not only in the theory of relativity
but in physics in general. This is why no theory can be accepted if it does not treat these two
concepts correctly.
Until the appearance of the theory of relativity, space and time were two separate entities and they
were treated as absolute magnitudes. In the theory of relativity these notions became relative and
mutually dependent. So, instead of Euclid's three dimensional space, Murkowski’s four dimensional
space appears, where time is the fourth dimension. The characteristics of space and time relative to
the reference space - body, become dependent on motion or more exactly, dependent on the speed
of motion relative to the reference space. Because of motion, the contraction of space appears in the
direction of motion, that is, the contraction of one space dimension in the direction of motion,
contraction of the length. With the contraction of space the contraction of the body in the direction
of its motion appears. Lorentz deriving his famous transformation explained or more precisely, he
tried to explain the negative result of Michelson's experiment. However, Einstein accepted his
transformation and rejected the explanation.
In case of Michelson's experiment according to Lorentz, the contraction of the body is in the
moving system in which it is at rest, and is caused by the effect of ether on atoms and molecules
which means all together on the whole body which moves within it.
Einstein does not acknowledge the ether or any other privileged coordinate system, which could
give a motive to introduce the idea about the ether. According to him, the contraction of the body
appears due to motion, so there is no contraction in a system where the body is at rest, but in a
system in relation to which the body moves. According to that, Michelson's equipment was at rest
in the system where the measurement was made and there could not be any contraction, so the effort
that Lorentz made to prove the contraction was useless. In regard to that, the question arises, if the
contraction given by equations of transformation really exists or it is an illusion achieved by means
of mathematics. We will consider this question, in the way that Einstein did, as it is in science
literature and in a new way.
The procedure for determining the contraction of space, body or length, which are all the same,
will be accomplished in cases of four transformations: the Lorentz transformation and the
transformations No. 2, No. 4 and No. 5.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 56

In the transformations No. 1 and No. 3, the coordinate system and the light wave move in the
opposite direction and there a dilatation appears instead of contraction. Because of this the
equations of these transformations will not be examined in detail, nor will comparison be made with
other transformations. In order to come to a conclusion it is enough to analyze four transformations.

17.1 Contraction of space according to the special theory of relativity

Before we look into the method for determining contraction in the scientific literature we will see
how Einstein solved this problem by means of a rod [6].
Quotation: "I will place the rod on the -axis of , so that its beginning is at the point = 0,
and the end falls at the point = 1. What is the length of the rod relatively to the system ? In
order to find this out, we first have to ask ourselves, where the beginning and the end of the rod lay
relatively to in a certain determined time in the system . For both points it is found for time
= 0 from the first equation of the Lorentz transformation

(17.1)

So, two points have the distance .

But relatively to , the rod moves at speed . The result is that the length of the rigid rod, which
moves at speed in the direction of one's own longitudinal axis, is meters. This means
that the rod is shorter when it moves than when it is at rest. It becomes shorter the faster it moves."
End of quotation.

In citated text Einstein uses equation derived by Lorentz transformation. However, he does not
respect the condition on which that equation is derived nor what it means.
In equations derived by Lorentz transformation

(17.2)

And , in these equations, are coordinates of the position of the light wave propagating along
and -axis of the systems and respectively. The times and are the times of the coming
of the light wave across and coordinate respectively.
The Eqs. (17.2) are derived on condition that when one of , , and is equal to zero then all
others must be zero too. For example, if =0 then must be =0, =0 and =0.

Accordingly, when =0 then cannot be

But

.
Consequently, Einstein's proof of the contraction is incorrect and looks like joke.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 57

17.2 Contraction of space according to the scientific literature

17.2.1 Contraction of space according to the Lorentz transformation

Three examples [10], [11] and [12] have been taken for the analysis from the voluminous
scientific literature. All three refer to the Lorentz transformation because there were no others.
Let us see how it is treated in literature [10]:

Quotation: "Let be the length of the rod in the system for which it is connected and where it is
at rest relatively to that system. Let us take two systems and . The latter moves at a speed
relative to the former, in such a way that its motion stays along the mutual -axes and the axes
and stay respectively parallel. So, for the coordinate points in those two systems the Lorentz
transformation could be applied

Let the rod be connected to the system (Fig. 17.1) so that it is in the plane parallel with
, that is, with the -axis. In the system let us mark the beginning of the rod with abscissa ,
and the end of the rod with . In the system let the abscissa of the beginning be and of the
end .

Fig. 17.1
Then
(17.3)
is the length of the rod in the system which moves relatively to the system . Of course, in the
system this is proper length or the length at rest.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 58

The length of the same rod in the system , in relation to which the rod and the system are
moving at speed , will be
(17.4)

According to the Lorentz - Fitzgerald hypothesis should be shorter than .

We note that the position of the two points in a moving system, that is, two points of a body
which moves relatively to an observer, have to be determined simultaneously, because of the
relativity of time. Simultaneity refers to time in the system from which the observation is made.
Simultaneity of determination in the body's own system, that is, the one in which the body does not
move is not obligatory, because there one time is connected to the body. But, according to Einstein's
theory of relativity, what is simultaneous in one system is not simultaneous in another system which
is in motion.
When the position of the beginning and the end of the rod are determined from system then
is the same, but isn't. Therefore we start from the Lorentz transformation of the coordinates

(17.5)

Both these times, and , are equal, so that

(17.6)

or

(17.7)

Thus
(17.8)
End of quotation.

Contraction is treated in a similar way and the same results are obtained in [11].
Thus one arrives at the result that the contraction does not appear in system in which the rod
is at rest and it can be concluded that nothing happens to the rod, but that the observer, from system
, only sees the contraction due to motion even though it does not exist. This contraction is in
accordance with Einstein's understanding, but not with Lorentz, who derived the transformation in
order to prove that the contraction happens in a system which moves and in which the body is at
rest. This was done in order to explain the negative results of Michelson's experiment where the
measurement was made in a system (the earth), which moves relatively to the "absolute inertial
system" - the ether.
However in the literature [12] the opposite results have been obtained. There it begins with the
same equations, but which have been solved for coordinates of the system in the function of the
coordinates of the system which moves, so

(17.9)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 59

here also it is claimed that , so, it is evident that

(17.10)

or

(17.11)

and
(17.12)
As can be seen, contraction of the length of the rod here is in the system , however in the
previous case it was in the system .
Let's see what will happen in the following three transformations using the same procedure for
determining the contraction of space as in the first quoted case of the Lorentz transformation.

17.2.2 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 2

In this case, according to Eqs. (12.22), the coordinates in a system are

(17.13)

After substitution , and by subtraction we obtain

(17.14)

or

(17.15)

and
(17.16)
The contraction is in system (or the dilatation in the system ), but its magnitude differs
from the magnitude of the contraction in the first case, that is, contraction according to the Lorentz
transformation.

17.2.3 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 4

Coordinates in the system are given by Eqs. (12.24)

(17.17)

and from that at

(17.18)
and
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 60

(17.19)
In this case there is no contraction in any system.

17.2.4 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 5

According to Eqs. (12.25) the coordinates in a system are

(17.20)

so it is at

(17.21)

or

(17.22)

and
(17.23)
Finally, we also obtain the opposite case. Namely, according to this transformation the contraction
of the rod appears in a the system where the rod is at rest, that is, in system . Of course, in the
system relative to which the rod moves, the dilatation of the rod appears, and that is contradictory to
the theory of relativity.
What is to be concluded from this? We come to the conclusion that every transformation gives a
different value of contraction. In case of four transformations three contradictory possible solutions
are obtained: in system relatively to which the rod moves, either contraction occurs, or there is
no change, or dilatation of the rod occurs. Such results are certainly unacceptable. How can such
contradictory results be arrived at? An error has occurred somewhere. And certainly there is an
error. The error is in accepting that light wave comes to the ends of the rod at the same time, that is
. If the following was used

which is defined by the fundamentals of the theory of relativity, the calculation would be correct,
but that result would not have been in accordance with the theory of relativity, that is with Einstein's
hypothesis on contraction. Therefore was reached by "looking," as was the convenient result
that

The incorrectness of the previous method of confirming the existence of contraction and
determining its magnitude can be proved in another way. Namely, the basic principle of the special
theory of relativity is that the speed of light in both inertial systems and is the same and it is
equal to the velocity of light in vacuum. If the procedure in determining of the length interval and
the time interval in the systems and is correct then by division of the length interval with the
corresponding time interval we should obtain the speed equal to the light velocity in vacuum in both
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 61

systems. This ascertainment will be done later on, that is, after considering the dilatation of time in
the theory of relativity.

17.3 A new way of determining the contraction of space

Before we start to consider this method of determining the contraction of space let us remind
ourselves of the remarks made and emphasized earlier on. First of all these are as follows: the
coordinates and are the coordinates of the light ray apex's (or light wave front) position, which
moves along and -axes of the coordinate systems and respectively. The axes and
are parallel; the motion of the origin of the system is along the -axis, and the motion of the
light ray or the wave is followed only along the and -axes.
Let us remember, Einstein himself gave in Eqs. (15.1), (15.2) and (15.3) that is
and and from there also . This is a starting point in deriving the Lorentz
transformation [Eqs. (10.1) and (10.2)]. In agreement with this we can also substitute and
. Coordinates and are coordinates of the light ray apex on the -axis of the system
at times and respectively, and nothing else. The same is valid for , , and of the
system .
On the basis of above presented we come to the conclusion that the new way of determining the
contraction of space is in the spirit of the basic idea of the theory of relativity.

17.3.1 Contraction of space according to the Lorentz transformation

The coordinates in the observed systems and are given in the form

(17.24)

After substitution and and by subtraction we obtain

(17.25)

or

(17.26)

and
(17.27)
So, this means that the contraction occurs in the moving system , but in that system Einstein's
rod is at rest, which is contrary to the theory of relativity. Besides, the coefficient of the space
contraction is not and from this it results that the Lorentz's hypothesis about
contraction is not correct even in a mathematical sense.
This was so when observation was made from the system . Earlier on we saw that the opposite
effect is obtained if we make the observation from the system . This has been presented in Eqs.
(17.6) and (17.10).
Let us check if this will occur if we use the new way of determination of the contraction. So, like
in Eq. (17.9)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 62

After substitution and and by subtraction we have

or

and

As can be seen we obtain the same result as in the previous case. This proves the correctness of
new method of determining of the contraction, because if the contraction exists, even just in a
mathematical sense, it cannot depend on the place where it is observed from. Especially if one
insists that it occurs in the case of real bodies - rods.

17.3.2 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 2

According to Eqs. (12.22) the coordinates in a system are

(17.28)

After substitution and and subtraction we obtain

(17.29)

or

(17.30)

and
(17.31)
As in the previous case, the contraction is in the system in which the body is at rest, but the
magnitude of the contraction is different.

17.3.3 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 4

As mentioned earlier, this transformation and the next No. 5, have been derived from the
condition of invariability of the equation for the propagation of the light plane wave or the sound
plane wave.
According to Eqs. (12.24) the following may be written
(17.32)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 63

As before, by substitution and and by subtraction we obtain

(17.33)

or

(17.34)

and
(17.35)
As in the previous cases contraction appears in system in which the body is at rest, but the
magnitude of contraction is different from the two previous cases.

17.3.4 Contraction of space according to transformation No. 5

According to Eqs. (12.25) it is

(17.36)

After substitution and and by subtraction we have

(17.37)

or

(17.38)

and
(17.39)
As in the three previous cases the contraction is in system in which the body is at rest. Its
magnitude also differs from the magnitudes in all three previous cases.
Naturally, instead of contraction in the system we can say dilatation in the system , but it
would not be correct, because contraction arises in the coordinate system , but only in a
mathematical sense.
So, according to the new way of determining the contraction of space, body or length, in all four
transformations the contraction occurs in the coordinate system in which the body is at rest,
while this system moves with uniform translation relatively to the system .
This contraction - shortening does not depend on where the system is being observed from and it
has some logic. Because the coordinate system , which moves after the light or sound wave,
reduces the space or length along the -axis, which the wave takes up in its motion. This reduction,
subtraction, increases with the speed of the system . What is it, if it is not a contraction of
length or space? If the contraction were a physical reality, then the length of the rod (from the
origin of the system to the front of the wave) would shorten almost to zero, if the speed of the
system got close to the velocity of light.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 64

In Fig. 17.2 a contraction process is shown. It is assumed that , in other words, that the
coordinate system moves after the light wave at a speed which is equal to one third of the
velocity of light.

Fig. 17.2
After the first second the light wave passed along the -axis a distance which is proportional to
the length of three divisions in system and reached the point . During this time, the origin of
the coordinate system passed one third of that distance, that is the distance which corresponds
to the length of one division, and reached the point . So, = 3 divisions, and = 2 divisions. In
the next second the wave will pass the next same length, and then will be = 6 divisions, and
= 4 divisions, that is, the wave will reach the point , and origin of the system the point .
So, = 3 divisions and = 2 divisions and in that way where =
3 / 2.
For the different speeds of the system the value of the contraction coefficient are
different too. With an increase of the speed , and are reduced, as well as their difference,
because the system is getting closer to the light wave. If the system had the speed equal to
the velocity of light, then and would be equal to zero, their differences would be equal to zero
too, and the contraction coefficient would be infinitely great.
The old method of determining the contraction of space did not pass the test. It was shown that at
the same speed of the system according to the old method can be: contraction, dilatation or
no change to the rod depending on the transformation which is being used, or depending on where it
is being observed from. In other words it seems that the rod can change, that is, be shorter, remain
the same, or be longer under the same physical conditions. What happens to the rod does not
depend only on its motion, but also on the choice of the coordinate transformation which is used.
Simply said it depends only upon applied mathematics, which is unacceptable.
The new way of determining the state of the contraction or dilatation does not have this
shortcoming. It confirms the same state for all the coordinate transformations - contraction in the
system in which the rod is at rest, as Lorentz asserted. When we say the rod we think of the
length and not of the body. However, baring in mind that each coordinate transformation gives a
different value for contraction, the logical question arises: "Can the contraction be accepted as a
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 65

realistic physics process?" The answer, of course, is negative. Simply said the contraction in
question is not a real physical process but a pure product of mathematics. A mathematician would
say: "It depends on the type of the variable substitution".
The realistic physical process of contraction occurs when some bodies move through some
environments which resist that motion. This contraction, certainly depends on the speed of the
body's motion, but also on the characteristics of that body: neutral particles, electrified particles,
solid bodies etc. The resistance to motion and contraction also depend on the connection of the
body with that environment which surrounds it and the effects it produces by moving. For example,
an electrified body in motion generates an electromagnetic field and establishes new relations with
the surrounding environment. It can interact in various ways with the environment, inductive,
capacitive, nuclear, gravitational etc. The environment can strongly resist an increase of the body's
speed - particle speed, above a certain value, such as the speed at which the "electromagnetic
barrier" breaks - the velocity of light. However the contraction of a body without doubt varies
according to the characteristics of that body and its connection to the environment, not according to
Lorentz and Einstein's calculations. The contraction results from physics and not from mathematics.
Finally we can conclude that Einstein's contraction of space is not a physical reality but a pure
illusion based on mathematics.

18. DILATATION (CONTRACTION) OF TIME

Classical physics, with Newton at the head of considers time to be the absolute value which flows
"continually, evenly and independently of anything else". In 1895 Lorentz introduced the concept of
local time into physics, and in 1905 Einstein gave this a completely new interpretation.
While working on his transformation, Lorentz came to the conclusion that the hypothesis of space
contraction was not sufficient, and in 1895 he offered another which was as amazing as the previous
one: "In systems which move with uniform translation a new measure for time is necessary". The
new hypothesis was necessary so that electromagnetic phenomena in the moving systems would be
the same as in the ether. Both hypotheses indicate that space and time have to be measured in
different ways in the quiescent ether and in systems which move relative to that ether. In this way
time was relativised, changing at transition from one system to another . Lorentz called the
new time local time, and treated it as an auxiliary mathematical magnitude, not as absolute time.
Einstein asserts that there is no means by which make possible to determine the existence of
absolute time and its differentiation from the infinite number of local times in systems of reading
which move relatively. According to him, time is connected to space, to bodies, and flows
differently in different systems, in some places slower and in others faster. How time will flow
depends on the relative speed of motion. It flows slower in motion and faster at rest. An important
conclusion of the theory of relativity is that time dilation occurs with motion.
As there were some remarks on the old way of determining the contraction of space there are also
criticisms of the method of determining the dilatation of time. Before approaching a determination
of the contraction of time in a new way, we will carry out an analysis of the determination of the
time dilatation according to the special theory of relativity and the scientific literature. As before,
we will use the equations of four chosen coordinate transformations for analysis.

18.1 Dilatation of time according to the special theory of relativity

In the special theory of relativity [6] on the subject of time dilatation, Einstein says the following:
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 66

Quotation: "Let us observe the clock which shows seconds and which is always at rest at the
origin ( = 0) of the system . Let = 0 and = 1 be two successive strikes of this clock. For
both these strikes the first and fourth equation of the Lorentz transformation give

(18.1)

If it is measured in the system , then the clock moves at a speed , and between its two strikes,
measured from the same reference body, passes not one but

seconds, thus a somewhat longer time. In consequence of motion, the clock runs more slowly than
when it is at rest. In this case also velocity likewise plays the role of the unattainable speed." End
of quotation.

This is all there is about the dilatation of time in the special theory of relativity.
The first and the fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation (10.11), solved for yield

(18.2)

Einstein first takes in Eq. (18.2) that = 0 and = 0 which is correct, and then he takes =0
and = 1 which must not be used, because he himself demands by Eq. (15.3) that . He says
the same in deriving the Lorentz transformation in Eq. (10.2). So, when =0 must be =0.
If Einstein had kept to the conditions under which he derived the Lorentz transformation, and if he
had taken into consideration that the time in system , expressed by means of coordinates
and of the system is given by the Eq. (18.2) and that it is, according to the second principle of
the theory of relativity, always he would have had to derive the coefficient of the dilation of
time in this way

(18.3)

From this it necessarily follows that, between two strikes of the clock, in system pass not one
but

seconds, and not as Einstein asserts

seconds.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 67

Einstein's derivation of the proof of the relativity of time and the magnitude of the dilation of time
contradicts his assertion that the time in system depends on the coordinate as well, that is
on the position of the clock in the system . So, if one chooses not to abide by the principles of
the theory of relativity and not to respect the conditions under which the Lorentz transformation is
derived, then he can, following Einstein's way, derive a "proof" that between two strikes of the
clock which is in motion, any number of seconds may pass in system , while in system ,
where the clock is at rest, only one second passes.
For example, let us assume that the clock is not at the origin of system but at some point

Then in system , according to Einstein's procedure cited above

seconds would pass between two strikes of the clock instead of

seconds, when the clock is at the origin of system , that is when = 0.

In this way, by choosing the position of the clock in system , in effect by choosing the value
of constant , that is , it can be proved that, in system , in which the clock is moving, any
number of seconds pass between two strikes of the clock.
From the above it follows that Einstein's derivation of the relativity of time and its extent (the
coefficient of dilation) is incorrect. The relationship between the time , which passes in the
system at rest and the corresponding time which passes in the moving system is given by
the relation

(18.4)

Before going further, some explanations are necessary.

The condition of time and space (dilatation or contraction) in any coordinate system are
independent of the fact whether and from where someone is observing them.
In the system during the motion of the light wave, there is neither contraction nor dilatation, of
both space and time. However, in the system which "pursues" the light wave, the contraction of
space and time appears, but only in a mathematical sense. If that system were to reach that wave,
that is, if the speed of the system were equal to the velocity of light, then the space would
disappear, or more exactly put, the interstice between the origin and the wave front would disappear.
Then the time disappears as well. This has been explained earlier on. For all that, nothing has
happened in system . Therefore it is more reasonable to observe the condition in the system
than in the system .
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 68

Einstein analyses phenomena in relation to system . As a result the dilation of time is,
according to him, in system , instead of contraction of time in system , where it in fact
occurs, at least in a mathematical sense.

18.2 Dilatation of time according to the scientific literature

In case of the Lorentz transformation further presentation of the contraction - dilatation of time is
based on the literature [10], where we must keep in mind that the procedure and final result is the
same with the other authors.

18.2.1 Dilatation of time according to the Lorentz transformation

Here is how the dilatation of time has been treated in the literature [10]:

Quotation: "Einstein's explanation of the Lorentz transformation for time, shows that time flows
differently in different coordinate systems, in some places faster, and in some place slower, because
absolute time does not exist. It is easy to show this by taking the corresponding relation for time

(18.5)

In order to determine the time interval in the inertial system , which moves with uniform
translation relatively to the system , we will take a certain process which is of course realistic.
Let the beginning of the process in the system be at the moment , and the end of the process
at the moment . Then the process in the system has lasted for time . This interval in
the system corresponds to a certain interval in the system . Since the moment in the
system corresponds to the moment in the system and moment corresponds to the
moment , that this process observed from the system will last for time . But, since
according to Einstein time depends on the position and not only on the speed, as is seen in Eq.
(18.5), it can be taken that, observed from , the beginning of the event has happened in the point
of the abscissa of the system , and the end in the point of the abscissa . In the system
the process takes place in one place. Then it is clear that between the distance , and the time
interval , there is a relation

because the body ( ), in which the process takes place, has been moved for that distance at speed
observed from .
According to Eq. (18.5) will be
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 69

and from there

So,

(18.6)

This important relation shows that

(18.7)
that is, the time interval in the system which is connected to the process, whose duration is
measured, is smaller than the time interval for the same process whose duration is measured from
another system with mutual motion. It can be seen that one second in the system corresponds
to seconds in system .
This means that the process is slower in the system than in the system . From this we reach
a conclusion about the clock, that is, the time flow register. It turns out that the clock functions
more slowly in the system in relation to which the clock moves, that is, the clock functions
slower when it is moving, than when it is at rest. In other words, time, connected to a body, flows
slower in motion than at rest. Motion causes the dilatation of time. This is a very important
conclusion of Einstein's theory of relativity." End of quotation.

In the following three transformations the same procedure will be applied in order to determine
the dilatation of time, without comments in detail.

18.2.2 Dilatation of time according to transformation No. 2

In this case of transformation time is given, in the coordinate system , by Eq. (12.22) as
follows

(18.8)

so

and

As in the previous case, that is after substitution we obtain

(18.9)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 70

Since

then from Eq. (18.9) we have

(18.10)
The dilatation of time is in the system , as in the case of the Lorentz transformation, but
magnitudes of these dilatations are different. So, for example, if then the dilatation
coefficient in case of Lorentz transformation is

,
but in case of this transformation

.
As it can be seen the difference is big.

18.2.3 Dilatation of time according to transformation No. 4

For this transformation, time in the system is given by Eq. (12.24), as follows

(18.11)

and from there

So, by subtraction we obtain

(18.12)

which results
(18.13)
The dilatation of time appears in the system also, as in the two previous cases, but the
dilatation coefficient is considerably larger. For example, if then the dilatation
coefficient is 20.

18.2.4 Dilatation of time according to transformation No. 5

For this transformation, time in the system is given by Eq. (12.25) as follows

(18.14)

so
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 71

After substitution and subtraction yields

that is

(18.15)

so
(18.16)
The dilatation of time is the same as in the previous case.

18.3 Checking the correctness of determining the contraction of space and

dilatation of time

Earlier on, it was said that the correctness of the method of determining the contraction of space
and dilatation of time, would be checked. This checking is done by dividing the length interval with
the corresponding time interval in the corresponding coordinate system. If the method of
determining the contraction and dilatation is correct, then the quotient will have to be the velocity of
light because the theory of relativity is based upon it.
The checking is done for all four treated transformations.

18.3.1 Checking in case of the Lorentz transformation

The interval of the length is given by Eq. (17.6)

and the interval of time by Eq. (18.6)

so, by division we have

(18.17)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 72

18.3.2 Checking in case of transformation No. 2

The length interval given by Eq. (17.14) is

and time interval by Eq. (18.9)

so, by division we have

(18.18)

18.3.3 Checking in case of transformation No. 4

The length interval given by Eq. (17.19) is

and time interval by Eq. (18.12)

so, by division we obtain

(18.19)

18.3.4 Checking in case of transformation No. 5

The length interval given by Eq. (17.21) is

and time interval by Eq. (18.15)

so, by division we obtain

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 73

(18.20)

Finally, we can say that in all four cases of transformations is proved that the quotient which is
obtained by division of the length interval by the corresponding time interval is not equal to the
velocity of light, which is explicitly required by the theory of relativity, because this theory is based
on that. The only possible conclusion is that the way of calculating the contraction of space and
dilatation of time is not correct.

18.4 A new way of determining the contraction of time

Here we say contraction of time instead of dilatation of time, because, as we said earlier on, the
contraction of time in a mathematical sense really arose, but in the moving coordinate system .
All four transformations will also be treated here as in the previous case. The new way of
determining the contraction of time in the system is based on the substitution of , that is
and . The old way as we saw is based on the substitution of , that is
and what is contrary to the second principle of the theory of relativity.

18.4.1 Contraction of time according to the Lorentz transformation

In this transformation time in the system is given by the equation

(18.21)

and from there

After substitution we obtain

that is

(18.22)

so
(18.23)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 74

18.4.2 Contraction of time according to transformation No. 2

Time in system is given by equation

(18.24)

that is

From there and after substitution and we have

(18.25)

and
(18.26)

18.4.3 Contraction of time according to transformation No. 4

Time in system is given by equation

(18.27)

and from there

After substitution and and subtraction we obtain

(18.28)

so
(18.29)

18.4.4 Contraction of time according to transformation No. 5

In this case time in system is given by equation

(18.30)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 75

and from there

After substitution and and subtraction we have

(18.31)

so
(18.32)
So, the contraction of time for all four used transformations, in a new way of determining the
contraction, happen in the system . However all these contractions are different.
Let us we see now, what will happen if we express by means of and and after that let us
find out where the contraction of time is. Therefore we shall take the time from the Lorentz
transformation using Eq. (12.20)

that is

and after substitution and and subtraction we obtain

This equation is the same as Eq. (18.22), that is we obtain the same result as when we expressed
by means of and .
Finally we can conclude that the time contraction always appears in system independently of
the type of coordinate transformation and does not depend on where the system is being observed
from, like the contraction of space, which is quite logical, and confirms the correctness of a new
way of determining the contraction of time. But, here we must remember that the magnitudes of
time contraction also depend on the type of the transformation.

18.5 Checking the correctness of the new way of determining the contraction of
space and time

Since the procedure is already known, a shortened procedure of checking has been given for each
transformation.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 76

18.5.1 Checking in case of the Lorentz transformation

According to Eq. (17.25) is

and according to Eq. (18.22) is

so, by division we obtain

(18.33)

18.5.2 Checking in case of transformation No. 2

According to Eq. (17.29) is

and according to Eq. (18.25) is

so, by division we obtain

(18.34)

18.5.3 Checking in case of transformation No. 4

According to Eq. (17.33) is

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 77

and according to Eq. (18.28) is

so, by division we obtain

(18.35)

18.5.4 Checking in case of transformation No. 5

According to Eq. (17.37) is

and according to Eq. (18.31) is

so, by division we obtain

(18.36)

These checks show that the new way of determining the contraction of space and time is correct,
because in all four cases of the transformation treated, by dividing the length interval with the time
interval, both in system and , the velocity of light was obtained.
At the end, in regard to time contraction it should be said that even in the new correct procedure
of determining the contraction of space and time different values for the different coordinate
transformations are obtained at the same speed of the system relatively to the system .
From this it can be concluded that time contraction cannot be connected to the duration of some
realistic physical process or state. The real duration of some process cannot depend on the
mathematical procedure of the coordinate transformation. Neither can time depend on it. So the
time we obtain can only be some conditional or local time as Lorentz called it.
The contraction of time is a mathematical concept related to the motion of the light wave or
acoustic wave which is followed from two inertial systems, under the condition that the speed of the
wave in both systems is equal to the velocity of light, or, to the speed of sound, when sound is in
question.
If the coordinate system is the system of reference, where time passes normally, then the
countdown of time ("ticking of a clock") in system is slowed relatively to the countdown of
time in system . Because of this we should rather talk about time contraction in system than
the dilatation of time in the system . Simply said, we can talk about time and space contraction
in the coordinate system which moves with uniform translation relatively to the other
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 78

coordinate system and under the condition that the system moves in the direction of the light
wave - ray motion.
Up till now the event of contraction - dilatation of time and space has been considered only in the
case of motion of the coordinate system in the same direction as the light wave. This was done
because Lorentz did the same. In such an approach in the analysis it has been discovered that in
system contraction of time and space occurs regularly, no matter if it is a plane or spherical
wave, and what the transformation coordinate is.
However, with motion of the system in the opposite direction of the light ray (or wave)
motion, which has the same validity as the previous direction, a contrary state occurs. In system
, instead of the earlier contraction we obtain the dilatation of time and space. This can be easily
shown by the procedures already used, but on the basic of the new transformations No. 1 and 3. It
must be born in mind that the new coordinate transformations also satisfy the requirement for
invariability of equation for propagation of electromagnetic waves, same as Lorentz. As such they
are equal to the Lorentz transformation, that is they have the same validity as the Lorentz
transformation. Because of that, it is impossible to claim in advance what, and to what degree, will
happen in motion, contraction or dilatation, not even in mathematical sense. This is even more
evident with the application of the following transformation of coordinates, which also satisfy the
requirement for invariability, as does the Lorentz transformation.

(18.37)

as well as

(18.38)

where , from the standpoint of invariability, can be any number, even an imaginary one.
The transformed coordinates (18.37) have a mathematical form similar to Lorentz, and for = 1
they are the same as Lorentz.
By changing the parameter we can get an infinite number of transformations of coordinates,
and with their application an infinite number of different values of dilatations and contractions of
time and space and that for the same relative speed of motion of the coordinate system .
Likewise, for the case of a plane wave there are countless transformations of coordinates, which
are obtained by changing the parameter , and with the application we also get countless different
values of dilatations and contractions of time and space for the same relative speed of the
coordinate system .
If we take an imaginary value for the parameter , whereby any physical interpretation is
excluded, the requirement for invariability of the equations for propagation of electromagnetic
radiation is also satisfied.
Einstein's assertions about dilatation of the time and contraction of space are without base,
because we are not able to establish which system is at rest and which is moving.
At the end, it can be concluded, in connection with the contraction of space and dilatation of time,
as follows.
Einstein's derivation of equation for the contraction of space and dilatation of time are not correct
nor the coefficient of the contraction and dilatation are accurate even in mathematical sense. This
assertion is proved in the chapters 17.1, 18.1 and 18.3.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 79

Correct expressions for the contraction of space and time, in mathematical sense and in case of the
Lorentz transformation, are given by Eqs. (17.26) and (18.22). Those equations show that the
contraction of space and time originate in the moving system in which a body is at rest.
Finally, it should be said that Einstein's contraction of space and dilatation of time is not a
physical reality, but an illusion, realized through a particular mathematical procedure accomplished
by means of transformation of the coordinates with the aim of achieving invariability of equation of
general laws in the area of electromagnetism.

19. ADDITION OF SPEEDS

19.1 Addition of speeds in a vacuum

The addition of speeds as Einstein presents it, goes against human experience and reason.
Accepting this way of addition would mean rejecting all that has been learnt and affirmed about
addition throughout the centuries.
In order to understand the problem of addition it is important to see what Einstein said about it [6].

Quotation: "Let a railway wagon be moving along a track at a constant speed . Let a man walk
along the wagon at a speed in the direction of the wagon's motion. By which speed relatively
to the railway embankment is the man moving during his walk? It seems that is only one possible
answer results from this way of thinking:
If the man stopped after one second, he would, relative to the embankment, have moved forward
for a certain distance which is equal to the speed of the wagon. Actually, relative to the wagon,
that is, in relation to the embankment, he would also have traveled forward by a pace the distance
, which corresponds to the speed of his walk. Thus, relative to the embankment, in the given
second the man travels in all the distance
(19.1)
Later on, we will see that this way of thinking which is in accordance with classical mechanics,
expresses the addition theorem, cannot be retained, and that this law, we had just now written, does
not represent the truth". End of quotation.

As can be seen from the quotation, Einstein has a different attitude to the addition of speeds even
with the simplest and most obvious forms of motion.
Further on Einstein says:

Quotation: "Instead of the man walking in the wagon, we will introduce a point which relatively
to the coordinate system will move according to equation
(19.2)
From the first and forth equation of the Galilean transformation and can be expressed by
means of and , so we obtain
(19.3)
This equation expresses nothing but the law of point motion relative to the system (a man
relative to the railway embankment) which we will mark as , so we have
(A) (19.4)
This considered case we can likewise thoroughly study also on the base of the theory of relativity.
Then in equation
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 80

we should express and by means of and using the first and fourth equation of the Lorentz
transformation. [As we said, according to the second principle of the theory of special relativity
have to be that is . Because of that in equation have to be at all
events. Beside that, the Lorentz transformation has been derived by using corresponding equations
for a case of light propagation, but not for a case of mechanical motion. Therefore, this
transformation could not be derived, at all, by using equation of mechanical motion, and have
nothing in common with mechanical motion. The exception is only spherical acoustic wave.
Therefore that equations of Lorentz transformation can not be applied on mechanical motion, except
in case of spherical wave motion, where instead of the speed of light, the speed of sound should be
taken. So, it should always be born in mind that Lorentz transformed coordinates refer to the
coordinates of the light wave position or a ray in the coordinate systems and , and by no
means to an arbitrary position of a point in these systems. (Remark M.P.).] Then we obtain, instead
of Eq. (A), equation

(B) (19.5)

which, according to the theory of relativity, corresponds to the theorem on addition of speeds
having the same direction. The question now is, which of these two theorems corresponds to
experience. In this context we learn something from a very important test performed half a century
ago by the genius physicist Fizeau but which was later repeated by some of the best physicists
experimentalist, so that result of the test is unquestionable." End of quotation.

In the passage quoted a shorter procedure of derivation of Eq. (B) about addition of speeds is
given. Considering the great importance of this equation it is necessary for the sake of clarity to
present the whole procedure.
The first and fourth equation of the Lorentz transformation, where and are expressed by
means of and , as we know are

Using these equations and the Eq. (19.2) given in the previous quotation

we obtain

and from there finally

(19.6)

where is a sum of a speeds.

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 81

According to Einstein, the sum of speeds can not be higher than the speed of light in vacuum. For
example, if we take that , and also that , then according to the Eq. (B), that is (19.6),
their sum is

(19.7)

which is contrary to everyday experience. That it is so, we can check and see in the following
example.
Let a light pulse of short duration be sent to a mirror formed by two adjoining sides of a cube. The
mirror of that shape divides the light pulse into two parts and two light pulses are created. In this
way they are directed in two opposite directions. In one second each of these two pulses will travel
300000 km. Bearing in mind that they move in opposite directions the distance between them will
be 600000 km. From this it certainly follows that they went away from each other at the speed of
600000 km/s, i.e. their relative speed was 600000 km/s. In other words, the sum of their speeds was
600000 km/s, and not 300000 km/s as Einstein claims in his equation for addition of speeds.
In a similar way, we can show the falsehood of Einstein's claim that the subtraction of the speed
of light and some other speed equals the speed of light.
Einstein's equations for addition and subtraction of speeds can be derived in a different, simpler
way from which it becomes evident what they really represent.
Eq. (19.6) is obtained by direct division of the first by the forth equation of the Lorentz or some
other transformations as follows

(19.8)

because

,
and also

.
The difference of the speeds

(19.9)

is also obtained by direct division of the first by the fourth equation of the Lorentz or some
other transformations, but under the condition that and are given as a function of and .
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 82

(19.10)

Let us analyze Eq. (19.6) and try to find out what it really represents. Let's start from the
beginning.
Lorentz derived the transformation of coordinates for the case of spherical light wave motion
along the -axis in the two inertial systems and , where the system moves translatory at
a speed along the -axis and without acceleration relatively to . For that, he starts from
conditions and . Consequently his first and fourth equation are valid only under such
conditions. On the basis of this condition, the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, the
special theory of relativity was derived. Because of that, it is always and only

(19.11)

and

(19.12)

so it is also always and only

(19.13)

and

(19.14)

This is for the case for the Lorentz transformation and transformation No. 5 which gives the same
equation for the addition and subtraction of speeds.
In case of transformation No. 2 we derived the following equation for the addition of speeds

(19.15)

and for the speed subtraction

(19.16)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 83

If in Eqs. (19.15) and (19.16) we make substitution we obtain

(19.17)

The form of the equation for the addition speeds and for the subtraction speeds in the case of
transformation No. 4, considerably differs from the previous. So, in case of the addition of speeds

(19.18)

and in case of the subtraction of speeds

(19.19)

But here, as well, by substituting we obtain the same, that is

(19.20)

and

(19.21)

Thus, for different transformations there may be different equations for the addition of speeds,
and for the subtraction of speeds but the result of the sum and difference must always be the same
and equal to the speed of light.
At the end we can conclude as follows. Einstein's equation about the addition of speeds, is really
about the velocity of propagation of a light wave along the -axis in the system . That velocity
of the light wave propagation is expressed by means of coordinates and and velocity of the
system . The sum of the addition of speeds cannot be higher than the velocity of light no matter
how high is, and has to be equal to the velocity of light only, since under that condition it is
derived by means of the Lorentz transformation. Many people, without any justification, have used
this equation as a proof that the velocity of light is the highest possible velocity in nature. On the
basis of this equation they assert that even relative speed cannot be higher than the velocity of light.
Einstein's equation describing the subtraction of speeds is really about the velocity of light wave
propagation along the -axis in a moving coordinate system which is expressed by means of
the coordinates and and velocity . The difference of speeds given by the equation about
subtraction of speeds always is also equal to the velocity of light no matter how high speed is,
because it is derived under the same condition as the previous. Let us repeat that this condition in
fact is the condition that the velocity of light in both coordinate systems and has to be the
same and equal to for the case of vacuum.
Einstein's inconsistency and the weakness of the theory of relativity can also be seen in the case of
the theorem of addition of speeds.
As we know, according to that theorem, when adding and subtracting the speed of light with any
other speed the result equals the speed of light. If this is true then it is inexplicable why Einstein
wrote in his first paper on relativity [2], in which he derived the Theorem on addition of speeds, in
the third formula
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 84

With these two formulas, at the very beginning, Einstein refuted his Theorem on the addition of
speeds in the course of its derivation. For, if what the theorem claims were true, then it would
be senseless to use the expressions and , when in their place only should be
taken. However, that cannot be done, because then it would be , which is not true
and which would make Einstein's treatment of the relativity of length and time interval absurd.
To this point we have been discussing light propagation in a vacuum, because it was for those
conditions the Lorentz and other transformations were derived.

19.2 Addition of speeds in water

How would the Lorentz and other transformations, as well as other equations for the addition and
subtraction of speeds look in the case of some other environment? It is clear that if the
transformations are to be derived, the other new environment will have to be homogenous and
isotropic too.
Let us suppose that the new environment is water. Let both inertial systems be in water, so the
light wave and the coordinate system move through water. In order to be valid the Lorentz
transformation would have to be and where and are the coordinates of
the light wave position along the and -axes in the system and respectively and is
the velocity of light in water. In order to exist an invariability of the equation for the light
propagation in water it is indispensibly to be
(19.22)

In that case the first and fourth equation of the Lorentz transformation solved for and would
have the form

(19.23)

Dividing with we obtain

(19.24)

If we make substitution in Eqs. (19.23) and (19.24)

then we have for the addition of speeds

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 85

(19.25)

and for subtraction of speeds

(19.26)

Thus, if one respects all the conditions for which the transformation of coordinates was derived,
then the sum and the difference of the speeds according to Einstein's Eq. (B), should be equal to the
speed of light in that environment, for which the coordinate transformation had been derived.
Everything else is wrong, or a dexterous thought trick, that is, a dexterous thought joke.

20. FIZEAU'S TEST AND THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

As the main proof of the correctness of the special theory of relativity Einstein cites Fizeau's
experiment as experimentum crucius, that is, its result. He always refers to Fizeau's experiment as if
it explicitly and without any doubt confirms the correctness of the theorem on the addition of speeds.
Einstein even dedicated one chapter in his writings to it [6].
In one place he says: "The experiment solves the problem with great accuracy in a favor to Eq. (B)
which has been derived in accordance with the theory of relativity. The influence of the speed , at
which water flows, on the propagation of light, according to Zeeman's last measurement, is
represented in the formula (B) with the precision better the one percent."
Let's examine whether the quoted assertion stands.
In Eq. (B), that is in Eq. (19.5) for the addition of speeds, which is derived by using equations of
the Lorentz transformation, Einstein substitutes and then in the case of Fizeau's
experiment he obtains

(20.1)

which corresponds to the results of Fizeau's experiment. In this equation is the speed of water
motion in the pipe and is the velocity of the light propagation in quiescent water.
As showed before, Fizeau came to the same equation but based upon the experiment. This gave
Einstein the right to assert that the result of the experiment convincingly confirms the correctness of
his theory, and that there is no other theory which could explain the result of Fizeau's experiment.
Many others also state the same. However, if the same substitution is made in Eq. (19.18) for the
addition of speeds, derived upon the basis of the coordinate transformation No. 4 which is derived
for the case of the plane wave propagation we obtain
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 86

(20.2)

which doesn't agree with the result of Fizeau's experiment. So the problem, arises and the question:
"Why it doesn't agree with the result of the experiment, nor with the result obtained by using Eq.
(20.1)?" The answer to this question is rather complex, because many things have to be considered,
and that is why we will explain it step by step.
The Lorentz transformation was derived for the spherical light wave and it identically satisfied the
requirement for invariability of the equation for the spherical light wave propagation. In case of a
plane wave this requirement of identity cannot be achieved by the equations of that transformation.
Only equality is achieved.
All interferometric measurements are performed by collimated radiation, that is, by plane wave
radiation. Fizeau also used them in the experiment. Because of that, keeping in mind the type of
light waves, Eq. (20.2), would give a more exact result which is derived for the case of plane waves.
But it isn't so. The opposite happens. The result obtained by Eq. (20.1), which is derived for the
case of spherical wave better corresponds with the result of experiment.
Transformation No. 5, is also for the case of plane wave, but its equation for the addition of
speeds is the same as in the case of the Lorentz transformation. This means, that by using the
equation of the transformation for the plane wave we can obtain two values for the coefficient of the
"ether drawing", and . But it isn't all. There are more anomalies and
surprises, in the sense "now you see it, you don't".
If in transformation No. 4, which is a stumbling - block, in equation for time we substitute
, that is , then we obtain the following equations of transformation

(20.3)

And from there

(20.4)

Dividing with , in case of the transformation No. 4, we obtain a new equation for the addition
of speeds which is the same as in case of the Lorentz transformation or transformation No. 5, which
proves that the derivation of the transformation is correct

Now a new difficulty arises. How to explain why, by substitution , which is connected to
Fizeau's experiment, another value is obtained for the sum of speeds whose coefficient of "ether
drawing" is instead of for the previous forms of the same equation, before
substitution . Especially when this happens, by using the same equations from the same
coordinates transformation.
The presented anomalies prove that Einstein's equation for the addition of speeds cannot be used
in the case of Fizeau's experiment in the form it has been given and in the way it has been used.
Where is the error in using the equations for the addition of speeds in interpretation of Fizeau's
results and what caused it? The cause of the error lies in the fact that Einstein's equations for the
addition of speeds and the subtraction of speeds were derived for conditions which differ greatly
from the conditions under which the experiment was performed.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 87

Lorentz transformation and the new transformations were derived for a vacuum, that is for an
isotropic and homogenous environment where the velocity of light propagation is equal to the
velocity in both and system. The theorem on addition of speeds which is given by Eq. (B),
that is by Eq. (19.5), is derived by using the equation in which and are expressed
with and by using the first and fourth equation of the Lorentz transformation.
Fizeau's experiment was performed in water, in an environment which differs considerably from
vacuum and where the speed of light propagation is . For the explanation of the experiment
results Einstein used the following equation for addition of speeds

(20.5)

Which is derived from the equation

(20.6)

where and are expressed with and by using the first and fourth equation of the Lorentz
transformation (derived for vacuum), as it is done in Eq. (19.6) or in the following way where
and are expressed through and

(20.7)

Thus, in Einstein's explanation of Fizeau's experiment we find two completely different

environments, water and air (vacuum) with different speeds of light propagation. He connects the
coordinates of the system for moving water, while the coordinate system is out of water, in
air (vacuum) and connected to the unmoving source of radiation. Because of that, the speed of light
propagation in the system is , and at the same time the speed of the propagation of the
same light waves in the system is .
The same wave or ray, in those two coordinate systems, cannot at the same time have two
velocities of propagation and . But if it does have them, then there can be no transformation
of coordinates and Einstein's Eq. (B) for the addition of speeds, because there are no more the
second and third fundamental principle of relativity; in a word there is no more the theory of
relativity. Einstein, as a famous physicist, had to know that.
Let us see what would happen if both systems were in water, that is, if Fizeau's measurement
system was to be sank. The measurement result would remain the same, because by the test records
the difference of the interference pictures at two conditions of the water in the pipes: when the
water is at rest and when it is in motion. There is no influence on the measurement and result if the
surrounding water outside of the pipe is at rest. By doing this a homogenous and isotropic
environment would be achieved, and conditions for the deriving transformation and existing of
certain equations for the addition of speeds would be realized.
It is clear that in the new environment equation derived for the addition of speeds in a vacuum is
not valid. The equation which could be valid for that new environment is Eq. (19.24), given in the
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 88

previous chapter where is the velocity of light in water and is index of water refraction.
So, if that relativistic equation is applied correctly in case of Fizeau's test, then a sum and a
difference of the velocity of light in water and the speed of water motion in the pipe, will be equal
to the velocity of light in water, as it was presented in previous chapter by Eqs. (19.25) and (19.26).
These equations, for the sake of clearness, we give again

(20.8)

and

(20.9)

This result is logical, because it was conditioned by the initial requirement and
in case of water environment and in case of vacuum. According to this,
Einstein's equation for the addition of speeds cannot be used in connection with Fizeau's
experiment, nor can it be used for any kind of speeds addition. Simple said, that equation
presents the velocity of light wave propagation in a unmoving inertial system in case of vacuum.
In case of water that sum of Einstein's speeds addition according to Eq. (19.25) is equal to ,
and the speed of water motion has no influence on it.
According to the theory of relativity the speed of light, in each uniform and isotropic environment
(vacuum, water and so on), must be the same in both systems and , since it is conditioned by
the postulate on the constancy of the speed of light.
Finally, according to all the above we can conclude as follows. The result of Fizeau's test is not
proof, and can not be any proof of the correctness of the special theory of relativity. On the
contrary, it shows that the theorem on addition of speeds is wrong, that it is based on a wrong
assumption and it is applied in a wrong way.
With the explanation of Fizeau's experiment, given in chapter 14, it is obvious that in that case
there cannot be a simple relativistic addition and subtraction of speeds, even if they were correct,
because it is a case of more complex physical process which imposes a more complex way of
calculating the interference shift.

21. THE INFLUENCE OF MOTION OF THE RADIATION SOURCE AND THE

RECEIVER ON LIGHT AND SOUND FREQUENCY (DOPPLER EFFECT)

21.1 The classical way of determining the Doppler Effect

The Doppler effect is well known in classical physics. In 1842 Doppler discovered that the motion
of a radiation source influences the frequency of acoustic or light radiation. However, the motion of
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 89

the radiation source and also the motion of the receiver of radiation influence the frequency which
is registered by receiver.
When a radiation source moves towards the observer the radiation frequency is increased, when it
moves away this frequency is decreased. So, the radiation frequency is increased in the direction the
source is moving, and decreased in the opposite direction.
If we mark with the frequency, in relation to the system to which the source is connected, that
is, the frequency of the source, and with - the frequency which the receiver receives, then

(21.1)

when the source moves away from the receiver and

(21.2)

when the source approach to the receiver.

In case of receiver motion we have

(21.3)

when the receiver moves away from the source and

(21.4)

when the receiver approaches the source.

In previous equations is the speed of the source, is the speed of the receiver and is the
velocity of light or sound.
The given equations can be applied for motion along the straight line "radiation source - receiver".
When the motion is under some angle in relation to that straight line, then in expression we
take . So, instead of Eqs. (21.1) and (21.2) as well as (21.3) and (21.4) we obtain

(21.5)

in case of source motion and

(21.6)

in case of receiver motion.

In case of receiver and source motion in the same direction in relation to the environment we have

(21.7)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 90

When then . However, the change of frequency does not depend on the difference
in speed but in general on and in relation to the environment.
The above is a summary of how classical physics, based on experience and everyday
measurements in the sphere of radar and laser technique, treats the Doppler effect, that is, the
Doppler frequency shift.

21.2 The relativistic way of determining the Doppler Effect

The theory of relativity has another approach and other formulas for the calculation of the
Doppler effect. Along with a longitudinal, there is also the transversal Doppler effect, which is not
accepted by classical physics.

21.2.1 Determining the Doppler Effect by use of equations of the Lorentz

transformation

The theory of relativity comes to the formulas for the Doppler effect by means of the Lorentz
transformation equations. For that, this theory starts from the fact that the intensity of the plane light
wave which propagates in vacuum in a system is proportional to

(21.8)

and the intensity of the same light wave in system is proportional to

(21.9)

where , , , , and are the cosine of orientation of the wave

normal relatively to the corresponding coordinate system.
According to the theory of relativity, expression (21.8) is invariant with respect to the
transformation, so we then have

(21.10)

Using the first and fourth equation of the Lorentz transformation in the first expression of Eq.
(21.10) yields

(21.11)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 91

Comparison of the coefficients of in Eq. (21.10) and (21.11) we obtain the following relation

(21.12)

In this way, according to the theory of relativity, we come to the equation (21.12), which is used
for the calculation of the Doppler effect. In regard to this equation Einstein says [5]:

Quotation: "Let us explain the formula for for two different possibilities: when the observer
is moving but the infinitely distant source is at rest and opposite, when the observer is at rest but the
source is moving.
a) if the observer is moving at a speed relative to an infinitely distant light source with the
frequency , so that the line "light source - observer" forms an angle with the observer's speed
relative to the coordinate system which is at rest relative to the light source, then the frequency of
light received by the observer will be given by equation

(21.13)

b) If the light source which radiates light of frequency , in the system which is moving with it,
moves so that the line "light source - observer" forms an angle with the speed of the light source
relatively to the system that is at rest relatively to the observer, then the frequency , received by
the observer is given by equation

(21.14)

Both these relations express the Doppler effect in a general form." End of quotation.

The Eq. (21.14), which Einstein gave for the case of a radiation source in motion, cannot be
correctly derived neither by the relativistic procedure nor by the classical. As such it is neither
relativistic nor classical. The relativistic equation for the Doppler Effect for the case of a source in
motion, which is derived by the relativistic procedure as well as the Eq. (21.13), is useless, since it
gives a result contrary to the well known reality. With the aim of proving this claim, let us derive
the relativistic equation of the Doppler effect for the case of a radiation source in motion.
In deriving this equation we shall use the same principle and procedure as in the derivation of Eq.
(21.12), that is (21.13), for the case of a moving receiver. In that derivation the radiation source was
at rest in the unmoving system , and the receiver was in the moving system . Thus, the
receiver was moving together with the system relatively to the system and also to the
radiation source. Under those condition the Lorentz transformation was applied to the Eq. (21.10),
so that the coordinates of the system were transformed to the system ( and were
expressed by means of and ), from which the observation was performed, that is the receiving
of radiation.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 92

In case of motion of the radiation source relatively to the receiver, which is at rest, the source
should be connected to the moving system , and the receiver to the unmoving system . So
the source will move together with system relatively to the system and to the receiver which
is at rest in that system. Since, in this case the observer is in system , then the transformation of
coordinates is performed relative to that system, and Eq. (21.10) should take the following form

Taking that and we finally get

(21.15)

From this derived relativistic Eq. (21.15) and also from before mentioned Eq. (21.14) it turns out
that the frequency of radiation, received by the observer, increases when the source of radiation
moves away from observer, and decreases when the source of radiation approaches the observer.
However, it is well known that in reality the opposite happens.
From this example it can already be seen that the relativistic way of determining the Doppler
effect is unsustainable. Nevertheless, it is interesting to show other fallacies and weaknesses of the
relativistic way of determining the Doppler effect.
If motion is along a straight line "light source - observer" = 0 and = 1, and then

(21.16)

in case of receiver motion and

(21.17)

in case of source motion.

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 93

Eqs. (21.16) and (21.17) express the longitudinal Doppler effect.

If the motion is normal to the straight line "light source - observer", then = 90° and = 0,
so

(21.18)

in case of receiver motion and

(21.19)

in case of source motion.

Eqs. (21.18) and (21.19) express, the so called, transversal Doppler effect.
So, by using the Lorentz transformation which is derived for a spherical light wave, equations for
the Doppler shift for a plane light wave motion are obtained. As mentioned earlier, with the Lorentz
transformation the requirement for identical satisfaction of the invariability of equations for a plane
light wave propagation is not achieved. Einstein himself required the invariability as can be seen in
the quoted text: "The simple derivation of the Lorentz transformation", given in chapter 10.
Why did Einstein chose the plane wave and not the spherical wave in deriving relativistic
equations of The Doppler effect? Probably those equations cannot be derived by using the equation
of a spherical wave. The transversal Doppler effect is a relativistic product. The assertion about its
existence is unfounded, which can be seen from the following consideration.
Let us take the case in Fig. 21.1 where is a radiation source of spherical light waves which is at
rest and is a receiver which moves along the straight line . When it moves from point to
point the receiver gets closer to the source ( ) all the way to the point , so the
frequency which the receiver receives is higher than the source frequency. In further motion, from
the point towards the point , the receiver moves away from the source, so the frequency
which it receives is lower than the source frequency. In transition from a higher to a lower
frequency than that of the source radiation has to pass through the same frequency of the source
radiation. In other words, on the way from plus to minus, zero must be crossed. This transition from
the higher to lower frequency appears at point , which means that there is no the frequency shift
at point . In other words, there is no a transversal Doppler effect, given by Eq. (21.18) and also
by Eq. (21.19), because the same is valid for the light source motion, as well.

Fig. 21.1
The relativistic equations for the Doppler effect are derived for the case of propagation of plane
waves, which, necessarily means that they cannot be used for the propagation of spherical waves.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 94

However, the Lorentz transformation of coordinates was applied to plane waves, which does not
satisfy the requirement for invariability of the equation for propagation of a plane wave. Judging by
this, relativistic equations for the Doppler effect cannot be applied to the propagation of plane
waves either.
The relativistic equations for the calculation of the longitudinal Doppler effect, which is the only
one that exists, can be used only when the speed of motion is small relative to the speed of light,
and then, in essence, they give the same result as classical equations, whose form is simpler and
easier to apply. For higher speeds, which approach the speed of light, and for which they are
designed, relativistic equations are useless since the mistakes in determining the Doppler effect are
unacceptably large. The proof of this is simple and can easily be derived in the following way.
Fig. 21.2 shows one possible arrangement of devices for the performance of this proof: at point
we have a radio transmitter which can emit radio pulses with a pulse repetition rate of 100 MHz;
at point , at a distance of 0.27 km is the first radio receiver; at point , in the same direction
and at a distance of 0.3 km is the second radio receiver and at point there is a starting device,
which is connected with the said radio devices with cables of the same length and electric
characteristics, which enable simultaneous switching on and off of all three radio devices.

Fig. 21.2
A spatial distribution of radio pulses after = 10-6 s from the time of the emission beginning is as
in Fig. 21.3

Fig. 21.3
The radio pulse, emitted from point , will travel the distance = 0.3 km and reach point in
-6
time = 10 s. If, with the help of the starting device, all three radio devices are switched on at the
same time for the duration of = 10-6 s, then in that time the radio transmitter, from point , will
emit 100 radio pulses, and the first radio pulse will reach the radio receiver at point . Ten pulses
will pass and be registered by the radio receiver at point . The other 90 pulses will be on the way
from point to the point .
Let us assume that the first radio receiver from point was next to the radio transmitter at point
at the moment when all the radio devices were switched on, and that from that moment it was
moved at the speed of towards point (like the coordinate system , whose speed of
-6
motion was ). After the time of 10 s from the moment of switching on it will arrive at the
point . On that path from point to point ten radio pulses will pass by it, in the direction of
point , at the speed . The first receiver will register these ten pulses in motion. The other 90
pulses will be in motion from the transmitter towards the first receiver at point , which is given
in Fig. 21.3. Had the first receiver stayed at point , it would have registered all 100 pulses. Since
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 95

it moved away from the radiation source at the speed it registered only 10 pulses, which is
in accordance with the classical equation for the Doppler effect

According to the relativistic Eq. (21.13), that frequency, because of the Doppler effect, should be

from which follows that the first radio receiver, on the path from the point to the point ,
should have registered 23 instead of 10 impulses. It means that between point and point , after
10-6 s from the start, 23 impulses instead of 10 impulses would be arranged, which it certainly did
not, and cannot be.
From the given example we see that when a receiver moves away from the source of radiation at
the speed of , the mistake in determining frequency according to the relativistic formula is as
much as 130%. With the increase of speed, the mistake increases as well. Such major mistakes are
certainly unacceptable, as is the relativistic way of determining the frequency of the Doppler shift.
The relativistic formulas for the energy of electromagnetic waves are also unacceptable, since
their form is based on the relativistic formulas for frequency. Einstein used these equations in, for
example, deriving the Eq. (23.48) for kinetic energy.
Earlier on it was stated that all coordinate transformations have the same value, if they satisfy the
requirement for the invariability of the equation of the light wave propagation. Therefore let us see
what will happen if we use equations of the transformation No. 2, No. 4 and No. 5 instead of the
equations of the Lorentz transformation. The application of equations of transformations No. 4 and
No. 5 is especially interesting, because they have been derived for the case of the plane wave, which
is used in the theory of relativity to derive relativistic equations of the Doppler effect. By equations
of these two transformations, as we know, the identical satisfaction of the invariability of the
equation for plane wave propagation is achieved. Judging by this it should be that, at applying
equations of these transformations, obtained results in the most real way would show the true value
and steadiness of the relativistic way of determining that effect.

21.2.2 Determining the Doppler Effect by use of equations of transformation No. 2

Substitution of expressions for and from Eq. (12.22) into (21.10) and comparing the
coefficient of from the expression so obtained and the corresponding expression in Eq. (21.10) in
the same way as in previous case, we obtain

(21.20)

in case of receiver motion and

(21.21)

in case of light source motion.

Eqs. (21.20) and (21.21), which are derived by use of the equations of transformation No. 2,
express the Doppler effect in general form. As can be seen it greatly differs from Eqs. (21.13) and
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 96

(21.14) from the previous case, that is from the adequate equations derived by using of equations of
the Lorentz transformation.
For motion along the line "radiation source - receiver" it is = 0 and = 1 so that

(21.22)

for receiver motion and

(21.23)

for source motion.

Eqs. (21.22) and (21.23) express the longitudinal Doppler effect.
When = 90°, that is, when motion is normal to direction of "radiation source - receiver", the so-
called transversal Doppler effect appears. Then = 0 and for receiver motion Eq. (21.20)
obtains the following form

(21.24)

and for source motion Eq. (21.21) obtains the form

(21.25)

The transversal Doppler Effect is expressed by Eqs. (21.24) and (21.25).

Thus, using the equations of transformation No. 2 for derivation equations of The Doppler effect
according to theory of relativity, both the longitudinal and transversal Doppler Effect appear.
However, they differ both in the form of the equations and in their value from the previous case,
that is, when the equations of the Lorentz transformation are used.

21.2.3 Determining the Doppler Effect by use of equations of transformation No. 4

Substitution of equations for and from Eq. (12.24) into Eq. (21.10) yields

(21.26)

Comparing the coefficient of from Eqs. (21.26) and (21.10) we obtain, for receiver motion
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 97

that is

(21.27)

and for source motion

(21.28)

If the receiver or source motion is along the straight line "radiation source - receiver" then =0
and = 1, so from Eq. (21.27) we obtain that and from Eq. (21.28) , which
means that there is no longitudinal Doppler effect in both cases, for the motion of the receiver and
that of the source, which runs counter to the well known reality.
However, when the motion is normal to the direction of "radiation source - receiver", that is at
= 90° and = 0, then in the case of receiver motion

(21.29)

and in case of source motion

(21.30)

Eqs. (21.29) and (21.30) express the transversal Doppler effect.

This means that when we apply transformation No. 4, in the relativistic procedure for determining
the Doppler effect, we find that there is no longitudinal Doppler effect but only a transversal one
and this, as we know runs contra to what was established long ago by experiment and is confirmed
in everyday practice.

21.2.4 Determining the Doppler Effect by use of the equations of the transformation No.
5

By substitution of equations for and from Eq. (12.25) into Eq. (21.10) and by comparing the
coefficient of from the equation thus obtained and the corresponding expression in Eq. (21.10)
we find that, in the case of receiver motion

(21.31)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 98

And in the case of source motion

(21.32)

As can be seen, Eq. (21.31) is identical to Eq. (21.27) and Eq. (21.32) to Eq. (21.28). So, the
application of transformation No. 4 and transformation No. 5 in the relativistic method of
determining the Doppler effect give the same result. In both cases the longitudinal Doppler effect
does not exist. Only transferal effects exist and they are equal in both cases of transformation. This
kind of agreement does not appear when we use the transformations for spherical waves (the
Lorentz transformation and transformation No. 2). Bearing in mind that the relativistic method of
determining the Doppler effect is based on the equation for propagation of the plane light wave, it
might be concluded that the results obtained using equations of transformation for plane waves are
more reliable. However, when equations of transformations for the plane wave are used in the
procedure of determining the Doppler effect the results, as is shown, are quite opposite to reality.
As a conclusion we may say that the relativistic method of determining the Doppler effect is very
interesting mathematical game, which cannot be related to the reality of physics in a logical sense.

22. ABERRATION
In 1725 James Bradley discovered the aberration of stars, that is the stellar aberration. He found
that the displacement, measured as an angle between the real and seeming direction of light rays
from a star, is small and in the direction of the observer's motion. In addition he discovered that the
aberration is the consequence of the finite speed of light and the transverse motion of the observer.
If we disregard the aberration caused by the movement of the solar system, then we are left with the
annual aberration due to the orbital motion of the earth around the sun and the diurnal aberration
due to the rotation of the earth.
Annual aberration is, for practical purposes, constant at = 20.496", which corresponds to the
orbital speed of the earth around the sun = 29.79 km/s. The diurnal aberration depends on
latitude. Its maximum is = 0.32" at equator and at a latitude of 45° (Belgrade) its magnitude is
= 0.226".
At the present there are two quite different explanations of the phenomena of aberration, the
classical and the relativistic. The first is based on the corpuscular nature of light alone, and the
second is based on the wave nature of light alone. This places both explanations in doubt. Besides,
according to the classical explanation of aberration the light rays reach the observer from the real
position of the observed star, whereas, according to the relativistic explanation the light rays reach
the observer from the direction of the seeming position of the star.
Because of these differences it is essential to scrutinize both explanations and also a third possible
explanation which is based on the existence of the earth's and sun's ether and their relative motion.

22.1 The classical way of determining the angle of aberration

According to the classical explanation aberration happens as a consequence of the finality of the
speed of light and an observer's motion. Other possible causes, according to this explanation, do no
exist. The classical way of determining the angle of aberration is based on the given explanation
and it is derived in the following manner.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 99

Let us assume that the observer moves in a straight line at a constant speed from point
towards point , and a ray of light from star , towards point at a speed , as shown in Fig.
22.1. Let the distance be proportional to the speed of light in the same manner as the distance

is proportional to the observer's speed so that . In this condition light will

come from point to point in the same time as it will take the observer to move from point
to point . If we place a telescope so that its objective lens is at point , and the eye piece at
point , then the observation of the star would be impossible for the following reason. Until the
light from point on the objective lens reaches point , the eye piece moves to point ,
because of the motion at speed , and from there the observation is impossible. To make the
observation possible the eye piece should be placed in point . Then, in the time needed for the
light to pass from the lens from point to point , the eye piece from point will reach point
, which will enable the normal observation of the star. Hence, to be able to observe a star, a
telescope should be turned at a certain small angle from the real angle towards the star, and in the
direction of the motion of the observer, that is the telescope. That small angle of turning is called
the angle of aberration.

Fig. 22.1
Classical equation for determining the angle of aberration, derived according to the Fig. 22.1, is

(22.1)

where is the real position of the star, is the seeming position of the star, is the angle of
aberration which is derived using classical equations, is the speed of an observer and is the
angle between the real direction towards the celestial body and the direction of the speed at which
the observer moves. In this calculation , that is it is always true that when the
observer moves to the right.
Thus, the classical explanation of aberration is based on the corpuscular nature of light. It is
assumed that the telescope should be turned at an appropriate angle from the real direction to the
celestial body so that the light corpuscle, entering the objective lens, can fall in the center of the eye
piece, which, during the passage of the light corpuscle through the telescope, moves in the direction
of the telescope's motion. However, this explanation clashes with the result of the famous
Michelson - Morley's measurements.

Until now there has been no explanation why the angle of aberration does not change when a
telescope is filled with water or some other matter whose index of refraction is bigger than the
index of refraction of air or vacuum. As we know, according to the classical explanation the angle
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 100

of aberration depends on light speed and the speed at which the telescope moves. When the
telescope is filled up with water then the speed of light in it is less by around 1.33 times, and the
speed of the telescope's motion remains the same, and because of that, and according to the given
explanation and the Fig. 22.1, the angle of aberration should be bigger. However, it remains the
same. The explanation for this is found maybe in the new explanation of Fizeau's test result given in
chapter 14. Namely, the direction of photon motion inside of such a telescope stays the same when
the telescope is filled up with water because water carries the photons in the direction of telescope
motion in the time segment while it is absorbed in water during its passage through the telescope.

22.2 The relativistic way of determining the angle of aberration

Aberration is considered as a proof of the correctness of the special theory of relativity. However,
closer analysis brings this proof into serious doubt.
The relativistic explanation of aberration is based on the wave form of light and the motion
relative to those waves. Thereby it is assumed that the light coming from stars is in the form of
plane wave.
The relativistic method of determining the angle of aberration is as follows.
Let there in the unmoving coordinate system propagated plane waves of light with the phase
given by expression

(22.2)

The phase of these same waves in moving coordinate system , which moves uniformly
relative to the system along the -axis at speed , is given by expression

(22.3)

where , , , , , are the angles of the normal to the front of plane waves with the
corresponding axes of the systems and respectively, or the angles of direction of light ray
with the corresponding axes of the corresponding system.
The expressions (22.2) and (22.3) are invariant and the Lorenz transformation can be applied to
them. By application of this transformation in relation to the system we get
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 101

and from there

hence

(22.4)

where is the angle formed by the light ray or the normal of the plane of the plane wave with the
-axis, is the angle formed by the same normal with the -axis and is the speed of motion
of the system relatively to the system , that is the speed of the observer in the direction of
and -axes. Since the and -axes are parallel, then is the angle formed by the direction to
the real position of the star with the direction of motion of the observer, and is the angle formed
between the direction to the seeming position of the star and the direction of the observer's motion.
Consequently, the equation for the aberration angle, derived by the relativistic method, is
(22.5)

22.3 Objections to the relativistic approach to determining the angle of

aberration
The angle of aberration derived by the relativistic method is in accordance with the results of
measurement and is equal to the angle obtained by classical procedure. That circumstance is taken
as proof of the correctness of the theory of relativity. Nevertheless, in spite of this agreement there
are certain objections which refer primarily to the low speeds of the observer's motion at which that
agreement is good, to the relativistic explanation of the cause of aberration and to the way the
equation of aberration angle is derived.
However, the agreement of the angle of aberration calculated by relativistic procedure with its
angle calculated according to classical methods is good only at extremely low velocities of the
observer relative to the speed of light, such as the orbital velocity of the earth which is about 30
km/s. The agreement begins to break down at greater velocities. For example, the angle of
aberration calculated using relativistic Eqs. (22.4) and (22.5), for an observer moving at
when the angle of the real position of the star is = 90° is = 53.13°. The angle calculated
using the classical Eq. (22.1) under the same conditions as before is = 38.66°. As can be seen,
the difference = 14.47° is considerable.
Consequently, we cannot claim that the agreement between the two methods of calculating
aberration is good when it only occurs using extremely low velocities for the observer relative to the
speed of light. Similarly we cannot assert that the relativistic way of calculating the angle of
aberration is correct for higher relativistic velocities.
The relativistic way of deriving the equation for aberration angle uses the Lorenz transformation
of coordinates with the equation for propagation of plane light waves. Using the other
transformation of coordinates, given in this book, and with the exception of transformation No. 5,
different angles of aberration are obtained.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 102

When we use the transformation of coordinates No. 5, given by the Eqs. (12.25), which is derived
for the plane wave, we obtain the same equation for aberration angle as when the Lorenz
transformation is applied and that being so independently of whether and are expressed via
and or vice versa.
It is interesting to note that the application of two quoted transformations in deriving the equation
for the Doppler effect give completely different equations, which was shown in the previous chapter.
It is even more interesting that these completely different equations are used (via and ) for
deriving the equations for angle of aberration and that they give the same final result, that is the
same equation of aberration angle.
With the relativistic method of determining angle of aberration the unmoving system is
connected to the plane waves which come from the observed star. So, at first sight it seems that the
system is at rest, and that the speed of the system relatively to it is around 30 km/s. However,
in reality it is not so.
Let us imagine that the observed star, is a pulsar from which every second a directed beam of light
of short duration comes to earth. Let at some moment = 0 the axis of that beam corresponds to the
-axis of the system and the pulsar travel in the direction of the -axis at the speed of, for
example, 200 km/s. Under these conditions the axis of the next beam pulse of the pulsar's emission
will be at a point on the -axis, at the distance of 200 km from the -axis, that is from the origin
of the system . If at the moment = 0 the origin of the system was at the origin of the
system , then after a second the origin of the system will be at a point on the -axis at 30
km distance (under the condition that = 30 km/s) from the origin of the system .
From this it follows that the relative speed between the system and the axis of the beam is 170
km/s and that the system moves in the negative direction and oppositely to the course of
aberration. Therefore, if the principles of relativity are respected, the system should be
connected to the star, and the system to the observer. However, if this was done then the result
of such a calculation would be way off the reality.
The derivation of the relativistic equation is performed with the help of two inertial systems,
which move relatively, and under the condition that the speed of light, from the same source, is the
same in both systems. This condition has meaning only in the case when each of the two systems
has its own ether, which carries the light. Such is the case with relativistic determining of the angle
of aberration.

22.4 A new explanation of aberration

The existing classical explanation of aberration is unsatisfactory because it is based on the

corpuscular nature of light alone and its explanation by wave theory is impossible.
In the case of a light source on earth all three aberrations would occur; solar, annual and diurnal.
However, it is well known that, in this case there is no aberration at all [11]. Until now no
satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon has been suggested.
There is no satisfactory explanation of the fact that a telescope filled with water exhibits the same
aberration as one filled with air. Some scientists have tried to explain this phenomenon using
Einstein's theorem on speed addition, but this cannot be correct since the theorem was derived for
conditions of vacuum, not water.
The question of light propagation through the cosmos has remained unexplained since
Michelson's famous experiment and the rejection of the very idea that an ether may exist.
According to the classical explanation aberration happens as a consequence of the observer's
motion, that is as a consequence of the telescope's motion in relation to the direction of the light
rays from the observed star, which are passing through the telescope. However, the result of the
Michelson - Morley's experiments disputes that classical explanation of aberration. It has been
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 103

established, by those experiments, that there were no motion of the interferometer and its parts in
relation to the used rays - beams of light, as it is described in the chapter 5. Consequently, the
telescope does not move too in relation to the light rays from the star, which are passing through the
telescope. From this also results that the used light rays come to the telescope from the direction of
the seeming position of the observed star, but not from the direction of the real position of the star,
as it is stated in the classical explanation of aberration. Accordingly, the result of the Michelson -
Morley's experiments and aberration are irrefutable proof of the earth's ether existence.
In the long run the correct and logical explanation of aberration and other previously mentioned,
unexplained phenomena may come to be based on the existence of the earth's and sun's ether and
their relative motion.
The sun has its ether which fills the space bigger than the space of the solar system. The earth also
has its ether which fills a considerably smaller space. It is similar to the magnetic fields of these two
cosmic bodies.
The light from the sun or some other cosmic body passes through the sun's ether before it comes
into the earth's ether. The earth with its ether travels around the sun, and thus through the sun's ether.
The relative motion of these two ethers is the cause of aberration of light when passing from one
ether into the other.
The sun rotates around its own axis. The velocity of the angular rotation of the sun's surface is
2.865·10-6 rad/s [21]. The velocity of the angular rotation of the inner part of the sun, which
generates the sun's ether, and of the ether itself is 3.99·10-7 rad/s.
Thus the velocity of motion of the sun's ether in the earth's orbit is two times higher than the
velocity of the earth in its motion round the sun. Aberration, therefore, originates when the light
rays move from one ether to the other which move relative to one another. This happens in the same
way as it would were the sun's ether quiescent and the earth's ether moved at orbital velocity, but in
the opposite direction to its real course. This explanation is in accordance with the course of
aberration too. Aberration would have the opposite course in case of a pull of the hypothetical
quiescent cosmic ether by the earth's motion.

22.5 Did Bradley make a mistake in determining the course of diurnal

aberration?

Diurnal aberration is small and negligible in comparison with annual aberration. Its measurement
is complex and difficult to achieve. Therefore, in Bradley's time, and for a long time after, the
magnitude and the course of diurnal aberration could not be measured owing to the lack of good
telescopes and the complexity of measurement. As a result diurnal aberration was calculated using
Eq. (22.1) and its course was taken to be the same as annual aberration.
Bradley observed that the maximum displacements in the seeming position of stars occurred when
the earth was in positions 1 and 3 as shown in Fig. 22.2

Fig. 22.2
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 104

When orbital and rotational velocity are in the same course (position 1 in Fig. 22.2) then, as is
generally accepted, the total aberration would be the sum of the annual aberration and the
diurnal aberration as shown in Fig. 22.3 and the measured seeming angle would be given by
equation
(22.6)

in which is the angle of seeming position and is the angle of the true position.
At position 3 in Fig. 22.2 the course of rotational velocity is opposite to that of the orbital velocity,
so that the total aberration is the difference between the annual and diurnal aberration, as shown in
Fig. 22.4. The seeming angle is then given by
(22.7)
Use of Eqs. (22.6) and (22.7) gives

(22.8)

(22.9)

In order to find the real position of the star we must know the diurnal aberration. As was said
before, this was obtained using the classical Eq. (22.1) for the calculation of aberration and the
direction was taken according to the course of annual aberration. After that it was possible to test
the validity of the Eqs. (22.6) (22.7) (22.8) and (22.9). Someone doing this could be convinced that
all was correct when in fact it could be incorrect.

Fig. 22.3 Fig. 22.4

Now let us imagine that the diurnal aberration has the same magnitude as before, but in the
opposite course. This situation corresponds to the existence of the sun's and earth's ether and their
relative motion. Then the situation in Figs. 22.3 and 22.4 would be as in Figs. 22.5 and 22.6
respectively.
According to Fig. 22.5 the measured seeming angle would be
(22.10)
and according to Fig. 22.6
(22.11)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 105

Using Eqs. (22.10) and (22.11) we obtain

(22.12)

and

(22.13)

Consequently, the annual aberration would not be changed, but the angle of the real position
would be smaller by making the angle of the real position
(22.14)

Fig. 22.5 Fig. 22.6

It is not at all simple to ascertain the course of diurnal aberration. For example, we can measure
the seeming angles and and using Eqs. (22.1) and (22.9) we can calculate the magnitude of
the diurnal aberration and the angle of the real position respectively. After that we can
attempt to ascertain the course of the diurnal aberration by the measurement of the seeming angles
and when the earth is at position 2 and 4, as shown in Fig. 22.2. Following the accepted
opinion that the course of aberration is always the same as a course of the observer's motion we
shall wrongly believe that is the angle of the real position of an extremely distant star and we
shall see that it is really
(22.15)
So we shall believe that all is correct, even though the diurnal aberration has the opposite course
and is not the angle of the real position.
As a matter of fact, when the star under consideration is extremely distant we should use
(22.16)
However, this equation gives the same result as Eq. (22.15). Therefore we can not determine the
course of the diurnal aberration by using the measured angles of aberration , , and .
The measurement of small angles in astronomy, such as diurnal aberration, close to the horizontal
plane is difficult and insecure because of atmospheric and other influences. Therefore, the
measurement of the diurnal aberration and determination of its course have probably never been
made.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 106

22.6 Ascertaining the course of the diurnal aberration by means of

astronomical observation

The correctness of the two above stated hypotheses is possible to test by means of a simple
astronomical observation of a star's seeming motion when its seeming position, at the beginning of
the observation, is in the direction of the earth's axis of rotation. By choosing such a starting point
the observation is considerably simplified. The direction of the incoming light rays in this case is at
a right angle in relation to the direction of the observer's velocity of motion. As a result the
influence of the thickness of the earth's ether, which is unknown, is excluded.
For the sake of easier explanation of this method we shall assume that the astronomical telescope
does not invert the image. We shall also ignore the annual aberration and the change of its course
during the observation since these will not influence the result of the analysis. In this way we
analyse change in the seeming position of the star that is the result of diurnal aberration alone.

Fig. 22.7
The procedure of the observation and analysis is as follows: At 18:00h, or some other time in the
evening the observer aims the telescope at a star the seeming position of which, at that moment, is
in the direction of the earth's axis of rotation. The telescope is positioned so that the image of the
star is in the centre of the cross-sights. If we connect the coordinate system to the cross-sights so
that the horizontal bar corresponds to the -axis and the vertical to the -axis, then the image of
the observed star is also at the centre of the coordinate system.
If earth's ether does not exist the image of the star will shift from point to the centre of the
cross-sight, that is the centre of the coordinate system, as shown in Fig. 22.7a. But if the earth's
ether exists the image of the star will shift from point to the centre of the cross-sights due to the
diurnal aberration which is, in this case, in the opposite course relative to the course of the
observer's motion. So the image of the star may be at point or at point , depending on whether
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 107

the earth's ether exists or not. We do not know at what point the star is because we do not know if
the earth's ether exists. This needs to be established through further analysis.
During the next 05h59'01" (to 23h59'01") the telescope shifts from position to position ,
because of the earth's rotation. At the same time the coordinate system (the cross-sights) changes
orientation by 90° relative to its orientation in position . The new position is shown in Fig. 22.7b.
The image of the star at point , in Fig. 22.7a moves to point and, due to diurnal aberration,
moves further to position . If the earth's ether exists then the image of the star at point would
shift to point , and from there, due to diurnal aberration in the opposite course, to point . The
distance between these two possible positions of the star's image along the -axis and the -axis
are .
During the next 05h59'01" (to 05h58'02") the telescope moves from position to position .
The situation then will be as shown in Fig. 22.7c. The image of the star at point , as shown in Fig.
22.7b, will move to point , shown in Fig. 22.7c and the image at point will move to point .
The coordinate system will have rotated by 90° relative to its orientation in position . In this
position of the telescope the distance between two possible positions of the star's image in the
coordinate system (the cross-sights of the telescope) is . Such small angles are detectable by
modern astronomical telescopes.
In Fig. 22.8 the curves of the movement of the star's image are shown, in the cross-sights of a
telescope at latitude 45° trained constantly in the direction of the earth's axis of rotation. The
observation starts at 18:00h. The curve indicated by a full line indicates the pattern of movement
when there is no earth's ether and the dotted line is the pattern to be expected if the earth's and sun's
ether exist and move relative to one another. In drawing these curves it has been taken into account
that astronomical telescopes invert the image and that the course of the annual aberration changes
during the observation.

Fig. 22.8
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 108

22.7 Possible errors in determining the earth's axis of rotation if the earth's and
sun's ether exist

The appearance of the image of the observed star at points and in the cross-sights,
presented in Figs. 22.7b and 22.7c, according to the method of observation described, would be the
proof that earth's and sun's ethers existed. At the same time it would be the proof that aberration is
the result of the relative motion of those two ethers. Nevertheless, if this does not take place, and
the image of the observed star appears at points and , this still does not mean that the course
of diurnal aberration is the same as the course of the observer's motion, that is, it does not prove that
earth's and sun's ethers do not exist.
The direction of the earth's axis of rotation could be determined by the astronomical observation
of the position of a star distant, at a greater or lesser angle, from the direction of the earth's axis of
rotation. Then it is taken that the course of the diurnal aberration is the same as the course of the
rotational motion of the telescope. If earth's and sun's ethers exist, however, then the direction of the
earth's axis of rotation will have been incorrectly determined by such a procedure. The real
direction of the earth's axis of rotation in relation to a direction determined in such a way differs by
an angle equal to double the value of diurnal aberration for the observatory from which the
observation was performed.
To make this problem easier to understand, let us examine the possibility of making a mistake in
determining the direction of the earth's axis of rotation.
When we aim a telescope at a star, then the image of that star appears at the centre of the cross-
sights, which corresponds to point in Fig. 22.9. That position of the image of the star corresponds
to the seeming position of the star. If only diurnal aberration existed then point in Fig. 22.9
would correspond to the real position of the star.
If there were no aberration then we would see the stars in their real positions. If, under those
conditions, we aimed a telescope at a star so that its image fell in the centre of the cross-sights and
left it for 24 hours, then the image of the star would describe the circle 1 shown in Fig. 22.9.

Fig. 22.9
If only diurnal aberration existed, then the image of the observed star, under the same conditions,
would describe a circle the centre of which would be the same as the centre of circle 1. The
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 109

direction of the earth's axis of rotation would pass through the centre of circle 1. That centre is
on the section of the line and line . The line is normal to the direction of the
rotational motion of the observatory at the beginning of the observation and after the rotation of the
earth at an angle of 180°.
However, if earth's and sun's ethers exist then the image of the observed star is in the real position
at point of the cross-sight, as shown in Fig. 22.9. If we now apply the same procedure, as in the
previous case, then we find that the earth's axis of rotation passes through point , which is the
centre of circle 2, that is, through the section of line and . The angular distance separation
and is equal to . As a result it is clear that every observatory could make an error in
determining the direction of the earth's axis of rotation, equal to double the diurnal aberration at that
observatory.
From the above it results that, if the sun's and earth's ethers exist, every observatory would make a
different error in determining the direction of the earth's axis of rotation, that error being equal to
at every observatory. This situation presents us with the possibility of establishing whether
these ethers really exist.
So, for example, the diurnal aberration at the site of the St Petersburg observatory (latitude 59.90°)
is = 0.1598". The possible error in determining the direction of the earth's axis of rotation at
this observatory may be = 0.3195". The diurnal aberration at the site of the Paris observatory
(latitude 48.86°) is = 0.2096" so the possible error in the determination of the direction of the
earth's axis of rotation may be = 0.4192". From this it results that the difference in the
determined directions of the earth's axis of rotation between these two observatories might be
0.0997" which means that we can establish the existence of the sun's and earth's ethers by
comparing the direction of the earth's axis of rotation as determined at these two observatories.
Naturally this is only valid when the two observatories determine the direction of the earth's axis of
rotation independently and with sufficient accuracy.
If the direction of the earth's axis of rotation has been correctly determined in a different way then
the procedure detailed above can be used to show that the sun's and earth's ethers exist.

22.8 One possibility for a demonstration of the existence of the sun's ether

The construction and the description of the new interferometer for the demonstration of the
existence of the earth's ether are given in the chapter 6 of this book. Two methods for that
demonstration, by use of the above mentioned interferometer, are given in the chapter 8.
The existence of the sun's ether can also be proved, but on the base of a shift of the spectral lines
in the spectrum of radiation of some star. For this purpose one should take the spectrum of radiation
of some convenient star, from the three points on the earth's orbit (see Fig. 22.10), as follows:
a) from the point when the earth approaches to the chosen star,
b) from the point in which the rays from that star form the right angle with the direction
of the earth's orbital motion and
c) from the point when the earth removes from the chosen star
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 110

Fig. 22.10

The marks in Fig. 22.10 are: is the sun, is the earth, is the earth's orbital velocity, are
the light rays from the chosen star and is the velocity of the sun's ether in the region of the earth's
orbit. The wavelengths of radiation from the chosen star, in the point , do not depend on the
existence of the above mentioned ethers, because the motions of those ethers are normal to the
direction of the light rays propagation. Therefore, the wavelength of some chosen line in the
spectrum of the received light, in the point , in case of the nonentity of the ethers, should be

(22.17)

where is the speed of light, and is the wavelength in the point . However, if the sun's ether
exists as a carrier of an electromagnetic radiation, and if its hypothetical velocity of motion, in the
region of the earth's orbit, is two times higher than the earth's orbital velocity, then the wavelength
of the chosen line in the spectrum of the received radiation from the chosen star, in the point , is

(22.18)

The difference of the wavelenghts and is

(22.19)

The wavelength of the chosen line in the spectrum of the received light in the point , in case of
the existence of the sun's ether, should be

(22.20)

So that

(22.21)

However, in the case of the nonentity of the ether should be

(22.22)

And
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 111

(22.23)
That is
(22.24)
Above presented method does not give supposed result. Therefore, it was impossible to discover
the existence of the sun's ether and its motion up to now.
The wavelengths of electromagnetic radiations from the star, measured on the earth, practically do
not depend on that whether or not the earth's and sun's ether exist. Reason for that is the change of
the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiations on their entrance into the sun's and earth's ether.
However, there are no changes of the wavelengths only when the direction of radiation is normal to
the direction of the ether motion, as it is shown in figure 22.10 for the case of radiation motion to
the point .
In the direction of the point , in the same figure, the sun's ether, as a carrier and a receiver of
electromagnetic radiation, moves to the observed star by velocity = 60 km/s. Therefore, the
wavelength of the observed line in the spectrum of the coming radiation, measured in the sun's ether,
should be

(22.25)

In the direction to the point sun's ether, as a carrier and a receiver of electromagnetic radiation,
removes from the observed star by velocity . In that case the wavelength of the observed line in
the spectrum of the coming radiation, measured in the sun's ether, should be

(22.26)

However, the sun's ether, as a carrier and a source of radiation, removes from the earth and from
the point towards the observed star by velocity . Therefore, the wavelength of the observed
line in the spectrum, measured in the earth's ether and at the point on the earth, should be

(22.27)

If the sun's and earth's ether do not exist then, because of the earth's motion toward the observed
star by velocity , the wavelength of the observed line, measured at the point on the earth,
should be

(22.27a)

The sun's ether, as a source of radiation, approaches to the point on the earth by velocity ,
so that the wavelength of the observed line in the spectrum, measured in the earth's ether and at the
point on the earth, should be

(22.28)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 112

If ethers do not exist then the wavelength of the observed line in the spectrum, measured at the
point on the earth which removes from the observed star by velocity , should be

(22.28a)

So, as it can be seen from Eqs. (22.27) and (22.27a), and also from Eqs. (22.28) and (22.28a) the
results practically are the same, and do not depend on that whether or not ethers exist. However,

some small differences exist, but they are so small ( ) so that they
cannot be detected by current equipment.
However, the existence of the sun's ether and its motion can be detected by means of new
interferometer placed in the cosmic flying vehicle. Interferometer, for that purpose, have to be small
dimensions and weight. The scheme of that interferometer is given in picture 22.11

Fig. 22.11
where is a laser with the collimator, is the beamsplitter, is the plate - glass for the
splitting and the shift of the laser beams which interfere, is an indicator of the interference and
the shifts of the interfered stripes and are absorbers of radiations.
The surfaces of the front side and back side of the plate - glass have to be polished and
planparallel. The reflection of the front and back side of the plate - glass should be so chosen in
order to get convenient relation between the intensity of useful beam and the intesity of parasitic
beams, which originate by many reflections between the front and back side of the plate - glass. For
example, if we want the relation to be 17 then the reflection of the front side should be about 20%
and back side about 30%.
The velocity of motion of the sun's ether near to the earth and outside of the earth's ether is
approximately 60 km/s. If the thickness of the plate - glass would be 2 mm and the refraction index
of glass 1.5 then the shift between interferented beams would be

at the turn of the interferometer for 180 degrees from the direction of the sun's ether motion. At the
turn over 10 degrees the shift would be

The velocity and the direction of the cosmic flying vehicle relative to the sun have to be taken into
consideration at such experiment.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 113

In above given calculation of the interference shift it is taken that the rocket with the
interferometer moves in the direction to the sun or opposite. In this way the velocity of the rocket
does not influence on the result of the measurement.
If the sun's ether exists then the ethers of the other stars exist too. Therefore, the light rays from
the far away stars would pass through the numerous ethers in the way to the earth. The aberration
originates at every transition of the light rays from the one ether into the other ether. Because of that
the determination of the real position of the far away stars would be impossible.
Proof that the sun's and earth's ethers, and the ether in general exist has far greater significance for
astronomy and for science in general than just an explanation of the phenomenon of aberration. As
a result, every opportunity should be taken to demonstrate that the ether exists, even when the
chances of success are small. Some of those possibilities are given by the methods described above.

23. MASS AND ENERGY

The best known and the most used part of the theory of relativity, which in essence does not
belong to this theory, refers to the field of physics which deals with the questions of mass and
energy of bodies, as well as the questions of mutual relation of mass and energy. Many physicists
strongly believe that the correctness of the theory of relativity is proved in the best and most
convincing way just in this sphere.
The theory of relativity and its author became as popular as they are thanks to the realization of
some possibilities predicted by this "theory". These unusual predictions referred to the possibility of
obtaining huge amounts of energy through transforming mass into energy, which was later realized
in nuclear explosions and nuclear reactors. With the explosion of the first nuclear bomb the
popularity of Albert Einstein and his theory increased enormously. Many, those poorly informed,
unjustifiably believe Einstein to be a creator of atom bomb.
In classical physics mass and energy are two completely different notions, which cannot be
related. According to the theory of relativity mass and energy are one and the same, but in different
forms of existence. Mass can be changed into energy, and likewise energy into mass. If body gains
energy, then its mass is increased, and if it looses energy its mass decreases. Hence, mass is greater
when a body is moving than when the body is at rest, it is greater when a body is heated than when
it is cold, etc.

23.1 The classical way of determining the masses of an electron in motion

The study of electrons in motion established, first in theory, and later by experiment, that its mass
changes depending on its speed. Long before the theory of relativity, in his theory on
electromagnetism, published in 1892, Lorentz laid the greatest significance on the question of the
interdependence of an electron's mass and its speed. While moving, the electron as an electrically
charged particle creates an electromagnetic field which surrounds its. The faster the electron moves,
the greater the resistance of that electromagnetic field to further increase of electron's speed. The
effect is the same as if with the increase of speed the electron's mass increases. That is why that
mass was named "electromagnetic mass".
In 1901 Kaufmann [W. Kaufmann, Gesell. Wiss. Gött. Nachr. 143, 291, 1901.; W. Kaufmann,
Physik Zeitschr. 4, 55, 1902.] experimentally confirmed that an electron's mass increases with the
increase of its speed. Using an electrical field to accelerate the motion of an electron and an electric
field as also a magnetic field to divert the electron from its direction of motion, Kaufmann found
that the mass of the electron increases in relation to its speed and that the electron has two masses,
the so called transversal mass and the longitudinal mass. These findings caused a great surprise
among physicists since, to that point, only one mass was known. The longitudinal mass of the
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 114

electron resists increases in velocity in the direction of its motion as mass does in classical physics.
The transversal mass of the electron, however, resists the deviation of the electron from its direction
of motion.
In classical physics there is only one mass. For example, in rotary motion a body will tend to
move at a tangent to the circle, because that is, at every moment, its direction of movement.
However, centripetal force compels it to move in a circle. Centrifugal force and also centripetal
force are the result of the resistance of the transversal mass to move in a circle. At first sight it
seems that everybody has two masses, longitudinal and transversal. In the case of an ordinary body,
however, these two masses are of the same magnitude, so that the body will react equally to
increases in the velocity of motion and the velocity of deviation. As a result only one concept of
mass existed until Kaufmann made his measurements. Afterwards the concepts of longitudinal and
transversal mass appeared.
Abraham [M. Abraham, Ann. d. Physik, 10, 105, 1903.] was the first to derive equations for
longitudinal and transversal mass. According to him the longitudinal mass of an electron was given
by the equation

(23.1)

and the transversal mass by equation

(23.2)

where is the mass of the electron at rest and the speed at which an electron moves. For very
small speeds , in relation to light speed, according to the Eqs. (23.1) and (23.2), the masses
and become equal to , and with the increase of speed up to the light speed that masses
become infinitely large.
Abraham's theory, that is the values for the electron's mass calculated according to the Eqs. (23.1)
and (23.2) matched well with Kaufmann's experimental results.

23.2 The relativistic way of determining the masses of an electron in motion

Relativistic equations for the mass of a moving electron have been derived, up to now, in different
ways, and have been published in many journals and books. All of those derivations, however, have
some shortcomings and, as a result, cannot be accepted without great reserve.

23.2.1 Lorentz equations for the masses of an electron in motion

As well as the transformation of coordinates and the hypotheses on the contraction of a body and
the dilation of time, Lorentz also proposed a hypothesis on the deformation of the spherical shape of
an electron in motion. According to this hypothesis the dimensions of the sphere will shorten in the
direction of its motion. On this basis he derived equations for longitudinal and transversal mass
which were published [H. A. Lorentz, Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light, Proc. Royal Acad. Amsterdam, 6, 809, 1904.; H. A. Lorentz,
Ergebnisse und probleme der elektronentheorie, Vortrag gehalten am 20 Dezember 1904. im
Elektrotechnicshen Vein zu Berlin] in 1904. His equation for longitudinal mass is
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 115

(23.3)

and for transversal mass

(23.4)

Lorentz Eq. (23.4), wrongly attributed by many to Einstein, is accepted as the general relativistic
equation for the calculation of the mass of a moving body, without any indication that it was
derived for the transversal mass of a moving electron.
Both of Lorentz equations have been confirmed by numerous experiments, but their derivation is
still controversial. Their derivation is based on the existence of the ether, but the ether has been
rejected. As a result, many papers have been published on the derivation of the relativistic Eq. (23.4)
for the transversal mass of an electron in motion. Some scientists have used Einstein's theorem on
addition in the derivation of this equation. But such a derivation cannot be accepted since the
theorem on addition is not correct, as was proved in chapter 19 of this book.

23.2.2 Sommerfield's derivation of the equations for the masses of an electron in

motion

Sommerfield's derivation of the relativistic equations for the masses of the electron in motion is
interesting and will be quoted in it's entirety.

Quotation: "Here we shall only investigate the changes that we have to make in the concept of
the fundamental quantity , the momentum, as a result of our new relativity principle.
We have called a vector. This means that the three components of transform just like the
coordinates themselves [i.e., the components of the radius vector ] in a change of the
system of coordinates. We therefore say that is covariant to .
This is valid only from the viewpoint of the Galilean transformation, where the time is regarded as
absolute. From the viewpoint of the Lorentz transformation the radius vector is a four-component
quantity, a four-vector
(15) (23.5)
Our relativistic momentum will similarly have to be a four-vector, i.e., must be covariant to , if
it is to have a meaning in relativity theory. We arrive at this four-vector in the following manner:
a) (15) being a four-vector, the coordinate distance between two neighboring points
(16) (23.6)
is also a four-vector.
b) The magnitude of this distance is certainly invariant under a Lorentz transformation. Apart
from a factor it is given by

(17) (23.7)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 116

We follow Minkowski in calling the element of proper time; in contrast to it is

relativistically invariant. We shall factor out in (17) and introduce the ordinary velocity of
three dimensions, to obtain

(17a) (23.8)

c) Division of the four-vector (16) by the invariant (17a) yields another four-vector; we call it the
four-vector velocity

(18) (23.9)

d) Earlier we derived the momentum vector by multiplying the velocity three-vector by a mass
independent of the reference frame. We shall similarly deduce the momentum four-vector
from the four-vector (18) by multiplication by a mass factor independent of the frame of reference.
We shall call this mass factor the rest mass and obtain

(19) (23.10)

It is proper to call the quantity in front of the parenthesis the moving mass (since it reduces to the
rest mass for = 0), or simply the mass. We therefore assert that

(20) (23.11)

This expression was first derived by Lorentz in 1904 under very special assumptions (deformable
electron). The derivation from the principle of relativity makes such special assumptions
unnecessary. Eq. (20) has been confirmed by many precision experiments with fast electrons.
Together with optical experiments, notably that of Michelson and Morley, it forms the basis of the
theory of relativity." [A. Sommerfeld, MECHANICS, Lecture on Theoretical Physics, vol. I, p. 14 -
15 and 30 - 31] End of quotation.

From the above we should note the following. The derivation gives only one Eq. (20) (following
the numbering of equations on the left side in the quoted text) for the mass, which must mean that
the electron in motion has only one mass, like an ordinary body in classical physics, and not a
longitudinal and transversal mass as Kaufmann's experiments indicated. The equation is derived in
principle and not in detail, so that it cannot be checked its correctness.
The following quotation from the same book will clarify somewhat more on the subject of the
mass of an electron in motion.

Quotation: "Here the variation of mass as a purely internal affair of the electron; there is no
question of any momentum gained from or lost to the surroundings. The equation of motion is
therefore , i.e., in view of (20)

(6) (23.12)

Let us first consider the rectilinear motion of an electron acts longitudinally, that is, in the
direction of , so that and .
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 117

We shall change Eq. (6) to the form "mass · acceleration = force", a customary procedure in the
early part of the century, though unnecessarily complicated. To this end we carry out the
differentiation on the left

(6a) (23.13)

Now so that and hence . Consequently Eq. (6a) becomes

(6b) (23.14)

The longitudinal mass multiplying the acceleration is therefore

(7) (23.15)

If, on the other hand, acts transversely, i.e., normal to the trajectory, only the direction, not the
magnitude of the velocity is altered. In that case is zero; (6) simply yields

For this reason one introduced at the time a transverse mass different from the longitudinal mass
and given by

(8) (23.16)

In view of these complications we emphasize that the above distinction between two kinds of
masses becomes unnecessary if we use only the rational form (6) of the equation of motion." End
of quotation.

In connection with this quotation we can conclude the following:

a) As distinct from the first text quoted the existence of the longitudinal and transversal mass of
an electron is confirmed.
c) bearing in mind that and if = 0 then must also be equal to 0. Therefore the
derivation of Eq. (8) for transversal mass is not correct.
d) c) the transversal force is equal to the product of the transversal mass and the transversal
acceleration, but not the product of the transversal mass and the longitudinal acceleration, as
stated in equation

since in this equation . Therefore this equation would read

(23.17)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 118

and is valid only on condition that . When this condition is not satisfied we cannot
determine the longitudinal or transversal mass. For example, in case of we do not know
which is the transversal velocity and which is the longitudinal velocity. In that case Eqs. (23.3) and
(23.4) for the longitudinal and transversal mass, which are different, do not make sense.

23.2.3 Einstein's derivation of the equations for the masses of an electron in motion

In his first paper on the theory of relativity [2] from 1905, under the title "The dynamics of a
(weakly) accelerated electron" Einstein derived relativistic equations for determining the mass of an
electron depending on its speed. He repeated this derivation in the paper [5] in 1907 under the title
"The derivation of equations of motion for a (weakly accelerated) material point or electron". In
both cases the derivations of these equations are incorrect, both from the standpoint of physics and
mathematics. A reader cannot be expected to accept these claims. Therefore it is necessary to quote
both mentioned derivations with commentary, so that the reader can see for himself that the
relativistic way of derivation of equations for electron's mass is unacceptable, as are the relativistic
equations according to which that mass is calculated.

Quotation (from the paper [2] published in 1905): "§10 THE DYNAMICS OF A (WEAKLY
ACCELERATED) ELECTRON
Let there be a point particle with the electric charge (in further text called "electron") moving in
an electromagnetic field; on the law of its motion we can assume the following.
If the electron is at rest in the course of a certain time interval, then in the next time element, the
motion of the electron, as long as it is slow, will be described by the equations

(23.18)

where , and are the coordinates of the electron's position, the mass of electron and ,
and the vectors of the electric field.
Further, let the electron in the course of a certain time interval have the speed . Let us find the
law by which the electron moves in the time element immediately after that time interval.
Without limiting the whole of thinking we can allow and indeed we shall allow that in that time,
when we start our observation, our electron is found at the coordinate origin of the system and
that it moves along the -axis, at speed . It is clear that in such a case, in the stated time interval
( = 0) the electron is at rest in relation to the coordinate system , which moves parallel to the
-axis at a constant speed of .
With earlier made assumptions in accordance with the principle of relativity it follows that the
equations of electron motion, observed from the system , in the course of time, immediately
after = 0 (small values of ) have the form
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 119

(23.19)

where the marked magnitudes , , , , , refer to the system . If we take that

with must be these will be the correct formulas of
transformation from §3 and §6 (the transformation of coordinates and on that basis the
transformation of Maxwell's equations for vacuum. Note by M.P.) and therefore the following
equations will be valid

(23.20)

where , , form vector of the magnetic field and .

With the help of these equations we shall perform the transformation of the given equations of
motion from the system to the system and we shall obtain

(A) (23.21)

Relying on the usual way of reasoning let us determine the "longitudinal" and "transversal" mass
of an electron in motion. Let us write the Eqs. (A) in the following form

(23.22)

and remark firstly that , , are the components of the ponderomotor force, which
affects the electron, wherefore these components are analyzed in the coordinate system, which, at a
given moment, moves together with the electron and at the same speed as the electron. (That force
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 120

could be measured by spring weight, which is at rest in that system). If we name that force simply
"the force which affects the electron" and keep the equation (for quantitative values)

and if we further establish that we must measure the acceleration in the system , which is at rest,
then from the earlier shown equations we get

(23.23)

(23.24)

Of course we shall get different values for mass in different determination of force and
acceleration, because when comparing different theories of electron motion one should be very
careful. We stress that these results in relation to mass are also correct for neutral material points as
well, since such a material point can be, by joining with any small charge, changed into an electron
(in our sense of the word).
Let us determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If the electron, from the coordinate system
with an initial speed 0, moves all the time along the -axis under the influence of electrostatic

force , it is clear, that the energy taken form electrostatic field will be equal . Since the
electron is slowly accelerated and as a consequence of that it need not emit energy in the form of
radiation, then the energy taken from the electrostatic field must be equal to the energy of the
electron's motion. Taking into account that in the course of the whole studied process of motion the
first of the Eqs. (A) is valid, then we get that

(23.25)

With the value of becomes, in that manner, infinitely large. As with the previous results,
the same is here, the speeds cannot be larger than the speed of light. This expression for kinetic
energy must also be valid for any mass for the earlier given proof." End of quotation.

In the paper [5] from 1907 Einstein again derives equations of electron motion, as in the above
quoted paper, but with some further, more detailed explanations, which did not appear in the 1905
paper, which are also incorrect, and therefore we shall quote that paper as well.

Quotation (from the paper [5] published in 1907): "§8 THE DERIVATION OF EQUATIONS
OF THE MOTION OF A (WEAKLY ACCELERATED) MATERIAL POINT OR ELECTRON
If we take an electromagnetic field in which a particle with electric charge (in further text
called "electron") moves then we can assume the following on the law of its motion.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 121

If the electron in a given moment of time is at rest in (un-accelerated) system , its future
motion in the system will then be in accordance with the equations

(23.26)

where , , are the coordinates of the electron in the system , and is a constant which
we shall call the electron's mass.
Let us introduce system which moves relatively to the same as in our previous analysis
and let us transform our equations of motion with the help of transformation formulas (1) and (7a)
[Eq. (23.20) in this book.] (The transformation of coordinates and on that basis the transformation
of Maxwell's equations. Note by M.P.). The first of these formulas in our case has this form

By introducing , etc. from these equations we get

(23.27)

(23.28)

By introducing these expressions in the earlier given equations, by putting , = 0, =0

and at the same time substituting , , by the formulas (7a) we get

(23.29)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 122

These equations are the equations of electron motion when at the studied moment of time ,
= 0, = 0." End of quotation.

So, the derivation of equations of electron motion is the same as in the previous paper with an
attempt to explain how are obtained Eq. (23.22) that is Eq. (23.29) via transformation of coordinates.
However, that explanation is also incomplete and wrong.

23.3 Objections to the Einstein's way of deriving equations for masses of a

moving electron

With a careful analysis of the quoted papers, which refer to the mass and kinetic energy of a
moving electron, every mathematician and physicist can see that there are inconsistencies and
mistakes in the derivation of the equations. Some of these mistakes are so big that they make the
derivation of equations unacceptable. The derived equation for the transversal mass of a moving
electron is also unacceptable. In short, it is unacceptable that a physicist, as far as physics is
concerned, or a mathematician, as far as mathematics is concerned, can make such mistakes. The
impression is that those mistakes, in the equation's derivation, are made deliberately so that the final
result of the derivation could be a desired equation.
Objections to Einstein's derivation and derived equations in the earlier quoted papers are the
following:
a) Eqs. (23.18) do not describe the motion of an electron, as it is claimed. They are not correct,
because in the equation derivation it was wrongly asserted that the electron mass was a constant
value, while it is well known that electron mass is a variable value dependent of the speed of its
motion.
Besides, in all equation derivation, it was assumed that electron motion is slow in relation to the
speed of light, as if it was a case of deriving classical equations, and in fact relativistic equations
were derived, which should describe the motion of electrons at high - relativistic speeds, close to the
speed of light.
b) The Eqs. (23.19) are also not correct. These are not equations of electron motion relatively to
the system , as it is claimed, because there it is also taken that the mass of a moving electron is a
constant value.
c) As has been said before, in the initial Eqs. (23.18), (23.19), (23.21) and later in all the equations
for deriving relativistic equations for mass, it is taken that the mass of an electron in motion is
constant and of the same magnitude in both coordinate systems, which move relatively at speed .
However, according to the theory of relativity the mass of an electron in the system , in which
the electron is at rest is , whereas its mass in the system in which it is moved at speed is
. From this it can be seen that the procedure for the derivation of the equations
for relativistic mass is in fact the same as the procedure for the derivation of equations for some
kind of would-be relativistic accelerations by means of the Lorentz transformation. Later we shall
demonstrate that this is the case.

Using Eqs. (23.19) and (23.20) for longitudinal acceleration we have

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 123

(23.30)

From this it results that the relativistic longitudinal acceleration is given by equation

(23.31)

In this derivation it was taken that is constant, and that as it is

. However in the derivation of the equation for transversal acceleration, and hence for

transversal mass, it is also taken that is constant, but in distinction from the case above,

in this case it is taken that .

Thus in the case of transversal acceleration we have

(23.32)

which means that the relativistic transversal acceleration is given by

(23.33)

Equations derived in this way, which are related to relativistic acceleration, are taken as equations
for relativistic mass. Such a procedure is unacceptable since, in physics mass is not simply the same
as acceleration. The inconsistencies in the derivation of the equations are no less unacceptable. In
particular the incorrect Eq. (23.24) for transversal mass is unacceptable. This equation proves that
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 124

such a method of deriving equations for the masses of an electron in motion is not correct and
cannot be accepted.
d) In the derivation of Eqs. (23.19) it is taken that the electron is momentarily at the origin of the
system and that it moves along the -axis at a speed . Only in that moment ( = 0) is the
electron found at rest relatively to the system , which also moves parallel to the -axis, but at a
constant speed of . Under these assumptions, and in the course of time immediately after = 0,
the Eqs. (23.19) are allegedly the equations of electron motion in the system . The question can
be put, what are the equations of electron motion when the time is not close to the time = 0.
Then the speed of the electron must be higher than the speed at which the system moves, for the
force constantly works on the electron. Nevertheless, in the final equations it is taken that
the speed of the electron is equal to the constant speed , that is the speed of the system .
Sometimes it is even taken that which is contrary to the main postulates of the theory of
relativity, since according to the Lorentz transformations is the position of a spherical light wave
which propagates along the -axis at light speed, then .
The electron moves under the effect of force . The speed of the electron depends
on the magnitude of that force and its duration. If the duration of that force equals zero, the speed of
the electron must also be zero. Hence if = 0, that is if the
speed of the electron can not be equal to the speed , therefore the initial conditions for derivation
of the Eq. (23.19) do not make sense.
e) Eqs. (23.18) and (23.22) should describe the motion of the same electron in the same
coordinate system . Because of that their form would have to be the same, but, for
incomprehensible reasons, it is not so. With the "passage" of Eqs. (23.18) through the system ,
in a strange, magical way the following equation is realized

(23.34)

which can be only in case when , that is when = 0. However, in that case the
connection with the theory of relativity is lost, since when = 0 then there is no other coordinate
system and there is no relative motion. If, regardless of all that it is still claimed that everything is
correct, then that is where science stops and magic starts. In fact, such a derivation of equations
does look like a magician's act, who shows an empty hat to his audience then puts a rabbit in the hat
(system ) and says a few magic words, and then to the audience's astonishment, pulls a fox out
of the hat.
f) In the second quoted paper of 1907 Einstein tried indirectly to correct his Eq. (23.24) for the
transversal mass of a moving electron by means of the system of Eqs. (23.29) which read

(23.35)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 125

These equations are obtained by division of both left and right side of the second and third
equation from the system (23.22) by . In this way he makes it seem that, on the left side of the of
the second and third equations "mass · acceleration", and on the right side "a force." From this it
results that is the transversal mass. However, after such divisions, the right side of the second
and third equations do not represent "the force". Since the components of the transformed electric
field from the system to the system by means of the Lorentz transformation have the
following form

(23.36)

as Einstein himself wrote in the same paper of 1907 [5] by Eqs. (7a) and by Eqs. (23.20) and (23.22)
given in the paper of 1905, quoted above [2]. Besides this, the derivation of the equations given in
Eq. (23.28) is also incorrect.
For example, it cannot be

,
but rather should be

, etc.
g) At the present time it is well known that the change of mass of an electrically charged particle
in motion is a consequence of the creation of an electromagnetic field around the electrically
charged particle in motion. From there some logical questions arise: "What happens with a neutral
particle in motion? Does its mass also change with its speed?" A logical answer would be that the
mass of a neutral particle does not change with motion. Such particles in motion do not create
electromagnetic fields which would resist further increase of the particle's speed, which would
manifest as an increase of mass. Some other physical process which would affect the
particle'sinertia, or the body as a whole, in motion, is not known.
Therefore, nothing else remains but to conclude that the mass of a neutral particle, and a body in
general, does not change with the change in speed of motion. Therefore, Einstein's generalization
that all bodies change their mass with the speed in the same way as an electron is unacceptable.
h) At the end we can conclude that Einstein's derivation of relativistic equations for the masses of
a moving electron are unacceptable. The derivations are not soundly based in physics and lack
mathematical correctness. Even in this incorrect way Einstein did not manage to derive the most
important equation in the theory of relativity

but the incorrect equation

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 126

.
As regards this main equation in the theory of relativity, we can say that it is not relativistic, nor can
it be derived by correct relativistic procedure.

23.4 Concept of mass

As has been said above, the moving electron has two masses - the longitudinal and the transversal.
In the theory of relativity, and in many other publications it is accepted that the mass of an
electron in motion, and the mass of the moving body in general is given by Lorentz's Eq. (23.4) for
the transversal mass of an electron in motion. The longitudinal mass and the transversal mass are
almost never mentioned, only the relativistic mass , or simply mass . As a result, those
insufficiently versed in the subject believe that the electron will resist an change in velocity with the
transversal mass, which is defined by Eq. (23.4).
As was said before, the longitudinal mass resists changes of velocity in the direction of motion of
the electron, or body, whereas the transversal mass resists the deviation of the electron from a
straight path. Accordingly the longitudinal mass is more important than the transversal because it is
the measure of the inertia of the electron or body. Also the longitudinal mass is considerably greater
than the transversal at relativistic velocities. Their relation for the electron is given by

(23.37)

The relation of the longitudinal and the transversal mass of an electron in motion and the mass at
rest, calculated according to Abraham's and Lorentz's equations for different velocities is given in
Table 23.1.
Table 23.1

0.1 1.012 1.015 1.004 1.005

0.2 1.050 1.063 1.016 1.021
0.3 1.192 1.152 1.038 1.048
0.4 1.231 1.299 1.072 1.091
0.5 1.408 1.540 1.120 1.155
0.6 1.697 1.953 1.190 1.250
0.7 2.221 2.746 1.295 1.400
0.8 3.292 4.630 1.467 1.667
0.9 6.717 12.075 1.816 2.294
0.95 13.15 32.846 2.218 3.203
0.98 35.063 126.899 2.808 5.025
0.99 72.816 356.22 3.286 7.089
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 127

From Table 23.1 we can see the following:

- The longitudinal mass becomes much greater than the transversal mass as the velocity of the
electron increases.
- The values of the longitudinal and transversal masses, calculated according to Abraham's and
Lorentz's equations are in good agreement with low, non-relativistic velocities. The differences
increase, however, with an increase in velocity. These differences become so big at relativistic
velocities, close to the speed of light that they are unacceptable. The question, therefore arises,
which equations are correct? At the same time the conclusion offers itself, that these were only
approximate equations made on the basis of Kaufmann's test results. Bearing in mind the remarks
made above on the derivation of relativistic equations, this is quite logical.
While discussing mass, we should note that there are disagreements about the very concept. Many
well known scientists have asserted that electrons have no mass in the classic sense, but rather,
electromagnetic mass only.
The idea that inert mass is in fact an induction, appeared in a study on the electrodynamics of
electricity in motion. In the paper, "On electrical and magnetic effects produced by motion of the
electrostatic electrified body" [Philosophical Magazine, 11, 229-249, 1881.], J Thomson considered
the possibility of reducing inertia to electromagnetism.
In accordance with Maxwell's theory, an electrical displacement (that is a current of displacement)
causes the same effects as an ordinary current. Therefore the magnetic field originates with the
displacement current. The energy of that field, in accordance with the law of energy conservation,
must be produced to account for the motion of the electrified carrier. But the motion of the
electrified carrier appears as a source of energy, and this is why it must tolerate resistance on
moving. As a result, Thomson concluded that, "resistance must be equivalent to the increase of the
mass of the electrified moving carrier" [Philosophical Magazine, 11, 230, 1881.].
Oliver Heaviside made considerable advances on Thomson's results in his paper "On the
electromagnetic effects which appear on the motion of electrical charges through a dielectric"
[Philosophical Magazine, 27, 324-339, 1889.].
Kaufmann came to the conclusion, after the measurement of the longitudinal and transversal mass
of an electron in motion, that "the real mass of an electron is equal to zero, and that the mass of the
electron is an electromagnetic phenomenon" [W. Kaufman, Über die elektromagnetische Masse des
Elektrons, Göttinger Nachrichten, S. 291-296, 1902.].
On the basis of Kaufmann's experiments, Abraham concluded that, "The inertia of an electron
originates from electromagnetic field". Appearing at a conference in Karlsbad, he triumphantly
announced, "The mass of the electron is purely electromagnetic in nature" [M. Abraham, Die
Dinamik des Elektrons, 22, 24, 28; M. Abraham, Physikalische Zeitschrift, 4, 57, 1902.
"Verhanlungen der 74. Naturforscherversammlung in Karlsbad: Die Masse des Elektrons is rein
elektromagnetischer Art"].
Lorentz greeted this conclusion as "undoubtedly one of the most significant results of
contemporary physics" [G. A. Lorenc, Teorija elektronov, str.76].
Poincare declared in his book, "Science and Method", "what we name mass is apparition only.
Each inertia is electromagnetic in origin" [A. Paunkare, NAUKA I METOD, SPb, str. 170, 1910.].
The proponents of relativity do not accept the concept of such mass of an electron. They do not
accept the fact that an electron in motion generates an electromagnetic field, which resists increases
in the electron's velocity, thus increasing the inertia of the electron, and hence its mass.
According to the theory of relativity, the increase in the mass of the electron in motion originates
exclusively as a result of relative motion. Physical reality and an understanding of that reality are
not important in the relativistic procedure for solving certain problems. Equations derived for
particular environments (vacuum), in some cases are used for others (water), as in the relativistic
explanation of Fizeau's test results. It also happens that equations derived for certain particular
magnitudes (acceleration) are used for other magnitudes (mass).
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 128

Introducing the second coordinate system is an artificial procedure, that works like the magicians
wand or top hat. For example, in deriving equations for longitudinal and transversal mass, Einstein
introduces a second coordinate system, which moves translatory to the first, by velocity . In that
second system he determines the longitudinal and transversal mass of a moving electron by means
of the coordinates of the first system. Equations derived in that way would accord with Kaufmann's
results. However it is well known that Kaufmann and his equipment were at rest in the first system,
which was also at rest and that Kaufmann made his observations in this system and not in some
other moving system.

23.5 The kinetic energy of an electron in motion

In order to derive an equation for the kinetic energy of an electron we can use the equation for the
longitudinal mass or the equation for the transversal mass. If we use the equation for the
longitudinal mass it is used known equation "energy = mass · acceleration · distance" in this way

(23.38)

When we use the transversal mass in the derivation of the equation for kinetic energy the
procedure is almost the same, only the force being defined in another way

(23.39)

So, we obtain, in both derivations, the same correct equation for the kinetic energy of a moving
electron.
Thus the change of kinetic energy is equal to the product of the change in the transversal mass and
the second power of the speed of light. So when the electron receives energy then it's transversal
mass increases proportionally. But, when the electron loses energy then its transversal mass
decreases proportionally to the lost energy. When the transversal mass is changed then the
longitudinal mass changes as well. The changes in longitudinal mass are greater because the
longitudinal mass is greater than the transversal mass, especially at relativistic velocities, close to
the speed of light. These changes, however, have not been taken into consideration.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 129

The equations for kinetic energy (23.38) or (23.39) are very similar and describe very clearly the
transformation of energy into mass, mass into energy, or, more precisely, transformation of energy
into electromagnetic mass, that is kinetic energy of an electrified particle into electromagnetic
energy, or an electromagnetic field.
Such a transformation of mass into energy is called the defect of mass, and it is connected with
nuclear reactions, such as fission and fusion. In the course of such reactions the mass of the material
concerned decreases and this partial decrease is accompanied by the release of an enormous amount
of energy in the form of radiation and the kinetic energy of the particles.
The equation which describes the kinetic energy of an electron in motion is not relativistic, nor
should it be treated as such since the equation for the mass of an electron in motion is not a
relativistic equation at all.

23.6 The energy of a body

The equation for the amount of energy contained in a body, , where is the mass of
the body, is the most famous equation in physics. Its simplicity is dumbfounding, particularly when
we bear in mind that it defines one of the most complex processes known to physical science, the
total transformation of matter into energy and energy into matter. This equation has contributed
most to Einstein's fame and to the fame of the theory of relativity, although it is not a relativistic
equation nor was it derived by Einstein. There is also doubt that it is accurate. Besides that Poincare
first derived that equation in implicit form in 1900.

23.6.1 The accuracy of the equation

Determining the energy of the electromagnetic field generated by an electron in motion,

Heaviside found that the energy of an electron at rest is where is the mass of the
electron at rest. In order to calculate the energy of the field caused by the motion of an electron, and
compare it to the energy of an electron at rest, Heaviside used Maxwell's theory by which the
energy of the electromagnetic field generated by a moving electron is [Philosophical Magazine, 27,
324-339, 1889.]

(23.40)

where is the vector of the magnetic field, is an element of the volume,

is the distance from the electron, is the radius of the sphere of the electron, is the speed of
motion of the electron, is the speed of light and = 4.803204197·10-10 stat C is the electric
charge of the electron.
Magnitudes , , , and in Eqs. (23.40), (23.41) and (23.42) are in the units of the CGS
system.
Bearing in mind that the energy of the field is equal to the kinetic energy of the electron, and that

at low speed of the electron he found that the mass of the electron at
rest could be determined using the equation

(23.41)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 130

Using this finding, and taking that the total electromagnetic energy out of the stationary sphere
with a radius and with the electric charge on its surface, is equal to , which can be
shown by simple integrating. He found that

(23.42)

and from there

(23.43)

or generalising

(23.44)

The discussion on whether the energy of an electron at rest or a body in general is best expressed

by or is not yet finished.

Here is what Einstein [A. Einstein, The most urgent Problem, Sci. Illustr., I, 16-17,
1946.] himself said about the accuracy of the equation : "It is taken that the equivalence of
mass and energy is expressed (although it is not completely accurate) by formula ."
However, generalizations given by equation (23.44) and by equation are not sure, and
the discussions about accuracy of those two equations do not make sense.
In the first case it is allegedly the energy of the electrical field of an electron at rest only. The
energy of motion inside of the electron does not take into consideration. Besides, the energy in
equations (23.42) and (23.43) are related to the energy of the electrical field of the electrified sphere,
whose charge is and radius . At that we should take into consideration that the charge of the
sphere is formed by a great numbers of electrons. However, in case of electrical field of an electron,
that charge is unit charge, that is, the charge of one electron only.
The energy , in the second case, is the result of motion of the electron as an electrically
charged particle, that is, the energy of electromagnetic field generated by motion of the electron.
In the both cases, those energies are not energies originated by transformation of some real mass.

23.6.2 Poincare's derivation of the equation

In his paper of 1900, entitled "Lorentz's theory and the principle of counteraction" [H. Poincaré,
La théorie de Lorentz et le principe de réaction, Archives Néerlandaises des sciences exactes et
naturelles, 2, 232, 1900.] Poincare characterises electromagnetic energy as "a flux that possesses
energy." He was the first to indicate that electromagnetic radiation has a total momentum equal to
Poynting's vector divided by the speed of light squared

(23.45)

Taking that , where is the electromagnetic energy absorbed by the body whose mass
is , he applied the law on the conservation of momentum in order to calculate the speed of the
retreat of the absorbing body using the following equation

(23.46)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 131

On analysis of this equation it becomes apparent that the mass, or inertia of electromagnetic
radiation is equal to .
In his paper "Determining the relation between mass and energy" [Journal of the Optical Society
of America, 42, 540-543, 1952.] of 1952 Ives reconstructed Poincare's article in detail and in the
light of "Poincare's principle of relativity" and demonstrated that Poincare's arguments, if we hold
to the final conclusion only, necessarily lead to the following relation of electromagnetic energy and
mass

(23.47)

where is the change of inert mass and is treated energy (absorbed or emitted).

Consequently, Heaviside in 1889 derived the equation . Poincare in 1900 derived an

implicit form of . Later it will be shown that Einstein did not create the equation .
His derivation of 1905 and later was incorrect and thus unacceptable. But in spite of this the
equation is still considered to be Einstein's.

23.6.3 Einstein's derivation of the equation

Einstein gave the first derivation of the equation in his paper [3] in 1905 under the title
"Does a body's inertia depend on the energy contained in it?", and he gave the second derivation in
the paper [4] from 1946 under the title "Elementary derivation of equivalency between mass and
energy". In both cases the derivation of equations was not correctly done so the final result
cannot be accepted, nor can it be accepted that it is a relativistic equation. To show that it
is best to quote the mentioned papers on whole and then to point out the incorrectness in the
equation derivation, which will be done below.

Quotation (from the paper [3] from 1905): "DOES A BODY'S INERTIA DEPEND ON THE
ENERGY CONTAINED IN IT?
The research results, published [Ann. Phys., 17, 891, 1905.] earlier, lead us to a very interesting
result from which I drew a conclusion that I will give in this paper.
In previous research I started not only from the Maxwell - Hertz equations for vacuum and
Maxwell's formula for electromagnetic energy of space but also from the following principle.
The laws, according to which the states of physical systems change, do not depend from that on
which of the two coordinate systems, moving with uniform translation relatively to each other, these
changes of state refer to (the principle of relativity). Starting from that I have personally come to the
following result.
Let a system of plane waves of light, relatively to the coordinate system , have the energy
and let the direction of the ray (normal to the front of the wave) form an angle with the -
axis. If we introduce a new coordinate system moving uniformly and rectilinearly
relatively to the system and if the origin of the first system moves at the speed along the
-axis then the mentioned light energy, measured in the system will be

(23.48)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 132

where is the speed of light. In the further text we shall use this result. [This Eq. (23.48) originates
form Einstein's relativistic Eq. (21.13) for the Doppler shift in which a wave frequency is
substituted by wave energy, for the energy is proportional to the frequency according to Planck's
equation where is Planck's constant, and is a frequency of a photon or a wave. Plank's
equation does not valid in the case of electromagnetic waves generated by motion of free
carriers of electricity as they are radio waves. Their amplitudes and energies are not quantified
because they can be changed continuously at the same frequency by the change of applied voltage
on an antenna. Note by M.P.]
Let there be an unmoving body in the system , and the body's energy relative to the
system equals . Let the energy of that same body relative to the system
which is moving, as we said, at the speed , be equal to .
Let that body send a plane light wave with the energy [measured in relation to the system
] in the direction which forms an angle with the -axis, and at the same time let it send
the same amount of light in the opposite direction. Thereby the body will remain at rest relatively to
the system . For that process the law on the conservation of energy must be satisfied and
that being (according to the principle of relativity) relatively to both the coordinate systems. If we
mark with the energy of the body measured in the system after the emission of light and
the adequate energy with relatively to the system , and using the above given relation
we get

(23.49)

(23.50)

By subtracting the first equation from the second we get

(23.51)

In this relation both differences of the form have a simple physical meaning. The
magnitudes and represent the values of energies of one and the same body in two coordinate
systems which move relatively to each other while the body is at rest in one system [in the system
].
In that way it is clear that the difference can deviate form the kinetic energy of the
body, taken in the relation to the other system [system ], only for an additive constant ,
which depends on the choice of arbitrary additive constants in the expressions for the energy and
. Therefore we can put that

(23.52)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 133

since the constant does not change with the emission of light.
In that way we get that

(23.53)

The kinetic energy of the body relatively to the system decreases with the emission of
light by the quantity which does not depend on the nature of the body. Moreover, the difference
depends on speed in the same way as the kinetic energy of an electron [see chapter 10 of
the earlier quoted paper, that is the quotation in chapter 23.2.3 of this book and the Eq. (23.25) in
the above given quotation. Note by M.P.].
Neglecting the small magnitudes of the fourth and higher orders we can get

(23.54)

From that equation it immediately follows that if a body emits energy in the form of radiation
then its mass decreases by the value . Thereby, it is, obviously, not important that the energy,
taken from the body, directly passes into the energy of emitted radiation, consequently we can reach
a more general conclusion.
The mass of a body is the measure of the energy contained in it; if the energy changes by the
value , then the mass changes by the value . The energy is here measured in ergs,
and mass in grams." End of quotation.

Let us now study Einstein's second derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy [4]
published in 1946. In this case we shall also quote the paper so that the reader can have the full
picture.

Quotation: "ELEMENTARY DERIVATION OF THE EQUIVALENCE OF MASS AND

ENERGY
The law of equivalence, here given, which has not been published before, has two advantages.
Regardless of the fact that special principle of relativity had to be used, this derivation does not
demand the application of a formal apparatus of theory, but it relies on the three laws known from
before.

Fig. 23.2
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 134

(1) The law on the conservation of momentum.

(2) The expression for the pressure of radiation, that is for the momentum of a wave packet which
moves in a set direction.
(3) The known expression for the aberration of light (the affect of the motion of earth on the
position in which unmoving stars are seen - Bradley's law).
We shall now study the following system. Let a body be free and let it be at rest relatively to
the system . Two wave packets and , each with the energy move in the positive and
negative direction of the -axis respectively and they are absorbed by the body . As a result of
that absorption the energy of the body increases by . Under those circumstances the body
remains at rest relatively to the system because of the symmetry.
Now we shall study that process relatively to the reading system , which moves at a constant
speed relatively to the system and in a negative direction of the -axis. Relatively to the
system that process is described in the following way. The body moves in the positive
direction of the -axis at the speed . The direction of the two wave packets form the angle
with the -axis of the system .

In accordance with the aberration law, in the first approximation where is the speed of
light. From the study of the process in the system we know that the speed of the body
remains the same after the absorption of the wave packets and .

Fig. 23.3
Let us now apply the law on the conservation of a momentum of our system relatively to the -
axis in the reading system .
I Let be the mass of the body until absorption; then represents the expression for the
momentum of the body (in accordance with classical mechanics). Each wave packet has the
energy and because of that, in accordance with Maxwell's well known theory, has the

momentum of . Strictly speaking, that momentum of the wave packet is relatively to the
reading system . However, when the speed is small relatively to , then the momentum
remains the same relatively to the system with the accuracy up to small value of the second

order ( in comparison with 1). A component of that momentum along the -axis equals

, or with the sufficient accuracy (if we neglect small magnitudes of higher orders) or

. Therefore the components of the momentums of the wave packets and along the -
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 135

axis, taken together, equal . In that way the total momentum of the system until absorption
equals

(23.55)

II Let be the mass of the body after the absorption. Earlier we have taken into account the
possibility of mass increase with absorption of the energy (that is essential so that the final result
of our study should not be contradictory). Then the momentum of the system after the absorption
will equal

Finally let us apply the law on the conservation of momentum in the direction of the -axis. That
gives the mutual relation

(23.56)

or

(23.57)

That mutual relation expresses the law of equivalence of mass and energy, The increase of the
energy is connected with the mass increase by . In so far that energy is usually determined
with the accuracy up to additive constant, we can choose the last so that
(23.58)
End of quotation.

23.7 Objections to Einstein's derivation of the equation

In reference to the last two quoted papers a number of objections can be made in relation to the
derivation and the derived equations on the basis of which Einstein gave the general conclusion that
a body's mass is the measure of energy, that is that . However we shall concentrate on two
important objections which will suffice to show that the relativistic way of derivation given in those
papers was incorrect. The objections are as follows.
a) It is generally accepted among scientists that Einstein first gave a complete theory on the inertia
of energy [Maks Born, Atomnaja fizika, str. 72, 1965.]. Reference is often made to his article "Does
the inertia of the body depend on the energy contained in it?" which was published in 1905. As we
saw above Einstein asserts that "if the body emits an energy in the form of radiation then its mass
decreases by ". Generalising from this Einstein concludes: "The mass of a body is the
measure of the energy contained within it". However, he failed to prove the assertion in the article
mentioned.
It is historically interesting that Einstein's conclusion that as it was published in
"Annalen Physik" was logically wrong. The conclusion is based on an argument that just would
prove [20]. In this article, where Einstein attempts to prove that the mass of a body decreases when
the body emits radiation, this loss of mass is not taken into account in the procedure by which the
equation is derived.
Ives proved that Einstein derived the equation incorrectly [Journal of the Optical Society of
America, 42, 540-543, 1952.]. We shall now summarise that proof. Ives's numbers of the equations
are given on the left.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 136

Ives found that Einstein derived Eq. (23.50) correctly, that is the next to come (23.59)

(1) (23.59)

and after that he says the following

Quotation: "However, if we mark with and the mass of the body before and after
radiation respectively, then the kinetic energies of the body and relative to the system
will be

(2) (23.60)

and

(3) (23.61)

At this point Einstein mistakenly states that and and in

this way, by means of subtraction, and on the basis of Eq. (1) gets

(4) (23.62)

and as an approximation

(5) (23.63)

Taking into account Eqs. (2) and (3) he must get

(6) (23.64)

which combined with Eq. (1) must give

(7) (23.65)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 137

or the two next relations would be treated as different

(23.66)

and

(23.67)

Comparing these equations with Einstein's equations and

we see that Einstein inadvertently asserts that

(8) (23.68)

which, strictly speaking, should be proved [20]". End of quotation.

At the end of the above mentioned article Ives gives the following conclusion: "It emerges from
Einstein's manipulation of observations by two observers because it has been slipped in by the
assumption which Planck questioned. The relation was not derived by Einstein."
From the above it becomes quite clear that Einstein did not present the theorem on the inertia of
matter, or prove that in his paper of 1905, although some known physicists continue to
refer to that paper. Relativists refuse to accept that Einstein made a mistake even when the mistake
is evident.
The quoted Ives's article is sufficient for an estimate of the correctness of the Einstein's relativistic
derivation of equations. However, Einstein's article and the relativistic way of the derivation of
equation have also the others shortcomings.
c) In the chapter 21 of this book it was shown that the relativistic formulas for the Doppler effect
are unacceptable and that they are more like a mathematical game than physics. This is
particularly true for the case of relativistic speeds. In his paper [5] Einstein gave relativistic
formula (21.13) for the Doppler effect for the frequency of reception when the receiver of
radiation is in motion, and the source of radiation is at rest, as well as the formula (21.14) for
the case when the source of radiation moves, and the receiver of radiation is at rest.
d) In Einstein's first paper, here quoted, he stated that the radiating body is at rest in the system
which is at rest. In that case the energy of light waves in the system which
moves with uniform translation relatively to the system is given by Eq. (23.48). On
the basis of that equation the final Eq. (23.53) was derived.
In case of two or more systems, which move relatively to each other, there is no possibility of
determining which system is at rest and which of them moves. It can only be established that the
systems move relative to one another, that is that one moves relatively to the other and that for each
of them can be equally claimed to be at rest and to be moving.
According to the theory of relativity which rejected the ether as an absolute system, all inertial
systems are equal. Therefore, in case of two inertial systems we can analyze some physical
phenomena in two ways, that is by observing that phenomenon from one or the other system.
Obviously, the event should be in one system, and the observer in the other. According to the theory
of relativity the result of the analysis must not depend on which system the event is observed from,
because all inertial systems are equal. By the way, in connection with this Einstein, in the first
quoted paper, himself wrote: "The laws, according to which the states of physical systems change,
do not depend from that on which of the two coordinate systems, moving with uniform translation
relatively to each other, this changes of state refer to." In the spirit of this let us put a source of
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 138

radiation of plane waves, from the first quoted paper, in the system so that it is at rest in
that system, which moves. In that case, according to the Eq. (21.14), the energy of light waves
measured in the system is

(23.69)

By using the Eq. (23.69) in the same way as it was used in the first quoted paper Eq. (23.48) and
in the same procedure of deriving equations we get the next equation for kinetic energy

(23.70)

which is significantly different from the responding Eq. (23.53) in the quoted paper, which also
proves that the procedure of relativistic derivation of the equation for kinetic energy is not correct.
The final result depends on whether the radiation is in the system at rest or in the system which
moves. Since we cannot say which system is at rest, and which one moves, then we cannot claim
which of the two different equations is correct. If the theory was good the equations would have the
same form in both cases.
c) On the basis of the equation for kinetic energy (23.53) Einstein draws a general conclusion,
which cannot be accepted without some reserve. So, by using the equation

he takes the first two elements of the order and he neglects the others, which must not be done in
the case of higher speeds. For example, with the value of neglected elements of the order

is greater than the taken element . With that kind of selection he reaches a corrected equation
for kinetic energy and compares it with the classical equation

(23.71)

From this comparison he concludes that , that is , and from there that
. So, he took a small speed, used in classical equations and very small energies, which
refer to small mass defects, that is the mass, which an electrically charged particle gains or loses
with the change of the speed of motion. On that basis, which is definitely uncertain, he draws a
general conclusion.
This applies particularly when we take the following into consideration. According to Heaviside
the energy contained in the mass of an electron at rest is given by Eq. (23.43) which runs

. However, for the proton as the first composite stable and positively charged particle,
that formula does not apply because, according to Eq. (23.41) from which Heaviside's Eq. (23.43) is
derived, the proton would have to have a radius 1836.16 times smaller than the radius of the
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 139

electron. It is believed, however, that these particles have roughly the same radius. In addition, the
equation does not refer to the mass of an electron at rest or a body in general, but rather
electromagnetic mass which is attributed to the energy of the electromagnetic field created by the
movement of a charged particle.
d) The other quoted paper does not belong to the theory of relativity because "it does not demand
the application of a formal apparatus of theory, but relies only the three laws known from before,"
as Einstein says himself.
Nevertheless, let us consider the way Einstein derives the equations and conclusions.
This derivation is not in accordance with classical physics nor with the theory of relativity.
It is necessary to be reminded of some facts, connected to the classical and relativistic explanation
of aberration, before an analysis of the Einstein's way of consideration of the process and derivation
of equations.
According to the classical explanation of aberration, light rays from a star are approaching to the
moving observer from the direction of the real position of the observed star. Because of that, there
is no aberration of the light rays at their approach to the somebody or telescope. Aberration
seemingly originates while the light rays are passing through the telescope. However, the light rays
do not change the direction of motion while passing through the moving telescope, too (See chapter
22.1).
The determination of the angle of aberration and explanation of the phenomenon of aberration in
relativistic procedure is based on two coordinate systems which relative move. At that, it is taken
that the first system is at rest and the second is moving, so that the source of the light is at rest in the
first system, and the observer is at rest in the moving system. Aberration is originating in the
moving system and the light rays approach to the observer, body or telescope from the direction of
the seeming position of the observed star.
Einstein starts to consider the process using two coordinate systems and which relative
move. In consideration of such start the procedure should be relativistic.
However, Einstein puts the body and the sources of the wave packets and in the same
system which is at rest (See Fig. 23.2). Because of that, the consideration of the process is
neither classical nor relativistic.
At such arrangement, the body absorbs the wave packets and stays in the balance because of
symmetry of the effect of the wave packets. After that, he takes that the body moves by velocity
relative to the system . The system does not exist in the farther consideration (See Fig.
23.3). Then, he takes that the aberration allegedly originates relative to the system , because the
body moves in this system. So, the wave packets allegedly reach the body at an angle
, where is allegedly the angle of aberration. However, as it is said before, according
to the classical explanation of aberration, this angle does not change at motion of the body
and must be 90 degrees. Apart from that he is taking that absorbing body and the sources of the
wave packets are in the same coordinate system, and aberration originates in the system at rest. It is
two big mistakes at the same time. Because of that, farther consideration of this process and
derivation of equations do not make sense.
But, the problem is not only in the misconception of aberration and application of aberration.
There are also the other incorrectnesses in this article. For example, he did some neglecting in the
derivation of equations and in this way he got incorrect, but wished result.
In deriving the Eq. (23.72) he uses components of energies of wave packets in the direction of the
body motion, which are the result of allegedly aberration. At that, he does not take into
consideration the decrease of absorbed energies because of a retreat of the body from the sources
of the wave packets. In this way he finds total impulse of energy in system in the direction of the
-axis.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 140

(23.72)

where is an angle of allegedly aberration in the system given by classical equation.

After that he applies the law of conservation of the impulse in the direction of the -axis and
yields

(23.73)

and from there

(23.74)

where is the mass of the body before absorption of energy of the wave packets and is the
mass of the body after absorption of that energy. On the base of it Einstein gave general
conclusion

(23.75)

In deriving the Eq. (23.72) Einstein did not take into consideration the decrease of absorbed
energy of the wave packets caused by the retreat of the body from the sources of the wave
packets in conformity with Eq. (21.3). If he had done this he would have got that Eq. (23.75) reads

(23.76)

Eq. (23.76) shows that even thought incorrect mixture of classical and relativistic procedure do
not yield wished results. Besides, from Eq. (23.76) results that the mass of the body decreases when
its velocity increases. Such finding is wrong and unacceptable.
Finally, let us suppose that everything is correct in connection with the comprehension of
aberration and its application in this article, and let us apply relativistic procedure with the use of
classical equation of aberration. Then, the absorbed energy of the wave packets in the direction of
the body motion, in conformity with Eq. (21.13), will be

(23.77)

and the momentum of that energy

(23.78)

In transforming the mass from system to system he have to decide which mass to take into
consideration, the longitudinal mass or the transversal. Naturally this is valid only on condition that
any body has the two mentioned masses in the same way as an electron in motion.
We have noted before that the electron has a longitudinal mass which resists changes in speed in
the direction of motion and a transversal mass that resists deviations from the direction of motion.
Relativists assert that the equation valid for the electron, as a charged particle, is also valid for
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 141

neutral particles and for bodies in general. Sticking to this, and bearing in mind that the action on
the momentum of the energies is in the direction of motion of the body , we are was obliged to
take the longitudinal mass into account. In that case we will conclude that the mass of the body
in system , given by Lorentz's Eq. (23.3) is

(23.79)

Using Eqs. (23.78) and (23.79) and the law on the conservation of momentum in the direction of
the -axis in the system we obtain

(23.80)

and from there

(23.81)

The conclusion given by Eq. (23.81) is completely unacceptable, since in this case the increase in
mass of the body in system , caused by the absorption of energy by the body in
system , depends on speed of any system relative to the system . Besides, from Eq.
(23.81) results that the mass of the body decreases when its velocity increases.
The transversal mass can be taken into consideration in the quoted derivation of the desired
equation, since the relativists use it in the case of the longitudinal motion as well. Then the mass of
the body in system would be attained using Lorentz's equation

(23.82)

Using Eq. (23.82) to accomplish the same procedure for the derivation of the desired equation we
get

(23.83)

and from there

(23.84)

The equation derived, (23.84) cannot be accepted either for the reasons given above in connection
with Eq. (23.81).
At the end the following can be said. Einstein did not derive the equation for a body's total energy
on the basis of the theory of relativity, hence that equation cannot be considered as a
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 142

product of that theory. It was developed by generalization on the basis of the equation for an
electron's kinetic energy , which is also not a product of the theory of relativity. Besides
it was concluded that the energy of a particle is not only proportional to the change in the moving
particle's mass but that it is also proportional to the particle's total mass, and also that the energy of
a body is proportional to the body's mass on the whole. In that way a daring conclusion was made
that the energy of a body is the measure of its mass and vice versa. That this is really so was
allegedly confirmed by the annihilation of matter and antimatter.
It is believed that the best example for the total transformation of matter into energy and energy
into matter is the annihilation of electrons and positrons at the moment of their collision and the
appearance of electron - positron pairs at irradiation a matter with gamma rays, whose energy is
greater than 1.022 MeV. However, in chapter 26 of this book it will be shown that the annihilation
of electrons and positrons does not exist, the same as the transformation of their total mass into
energy of the gamma radiation does not exist. Therefore one should be very careful and accept with
reserve the proposition that the total energy of a body equals the product of its total mass and the
speed of light squared. It seems that it is still unknown how much energy is concentrated in the
mass of a particle at rest, nor in the mass of a body as a whole.

23.8 The derivation of the equation by the classical procedure

Equation which defines the relationship between mass and energy, is not a relativistic
equation but purely classical. I have derived that equation according to the correct classical
procedure, using well-known physical laws that have been confirmed many times in practice.
Maxwell put forward the theory that the energy flux of electromagnetic radiation behaves as if it
contains a momentum that exerts pressure on obstacles to the propagation of that radiation which
can be defined by the equation

(23.85)

where is the energy of the radiation which falls on a unit of the surface of a body, in a unit of
time, is the speed of light and is the coefficient of reflection of the body's surface.
Maxwell also theoretically explained the phenomena of the pressure exerted by electromagnetic
radiation and determined its magnitude. Later, the pressure exerted by radiation was confirmed
experimentally. We can see the pressure exerted by radiation in nature when a comet develops a tail.
The head of a comet, which consists of one or more large solid parts, always points towards the sun.
The tail, which consists of gasses and ice particles streams away from the sun. This is the result of
the pressure exerted by solar radiation on the gasses and particles of the tail.
The equation can be derived by correct classical procedures, using the phenomena of
the pressure exerted by electromagnetic radiation.
The equation has indeed been derived on the basis of the pressure exerted at the total absorption
of light. The derivation of the equation on the base of the total absorption is less
convenient. The reason for this is the impossibility of determining the quantity of the absorbed
energy spent in the mechanical work under the force of the pressure of radiation. We know that the
energy absorbed from the radiation is expended in heating the body and on mechanical work, but
we do not know in what proportion.
I derived the equation using the phenomena of the pressure of light at total reflection
[The concept of the total reflection of radiation is understood as the reflection of light at which the
energy of the incoming light is equal to the sum of the reflected energy and the energy spent in
mechanical work.], the Doppler effect and Plank's law, as follows.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 143

Fig. 23.4
Let us assume that light with energy and frequency , falls at an angle of 90° onto a thin,
moveable, totally reflective plate of area . The plate moves from point to point over a
distance , under the pressure of the light radiation, as shown schematically in Fig. 23.4. The
greater part of the incoming energy which we denote is reflected back. A very small part
is spent on the mechanical work needed to move the plate from to .
If is the pressure exerted by the light, then is the force of the pressure on the area , and
the mechanical work realised
(23.86)
If the flow of light is constant over the time , then the force of the pressure is constant too. In
these circumstances, the plate will accelerate with the mean velocity . In this case we have
(23.87)
from which we get (23.88)
(23.88)

where is the momentum transferred to the reflective plate through the pressure exerted upon it
by the light rays over time .
The reflective plate will retreat under the pressure of the radiation. Therefore, the frequency of the
light radiation that falls on the plate, which as receiver of radiation retreacts, is

(23.89)

According to Huygens' law the irradiated plate becomes the source of radiation. In compliance
with this and bearing in mind that the reflective plate, as the source of radiation is retreating, we can
write that the frequency of the reflected radiation is

(23.90)

According to Planck's law, the energy of a light wave is proportional to its frequency. As a result
of this and in the light of Eq. (23.90) the energy of the reflected radiation is

(23.91)

Using Eq. (23.91) and taking into account that we get

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 144

(23.92)

From Eqs. (23.88) and (23.92) we have

(23.93)

and from there

(23.94)

If we ascribe a certain mass , to the energy of light, and bearing in mind that on the reflection
of light elastic collision occurs, then we can conclude that the momentum transferred to the small
reflected plate, is equal to double the momentum of the mass ascribed to the light energy. So we can
write
(23.95)
From Eqs. (23.94) and (23.95) we have

(23.96)

and from there, finally

(23.97)
By the way, according to Maxwell's well known theory, as we said before, the energy flux of
electromagnetic radiation possesses an momentum . On the base of that Poincare concluded
that and from that , where is the mass ascribed to the energy .
And thus it is clear that the equation which describes the relationship between mass and energy,
, is a classical equation. It is not a relativistic equation because it has not been, nor can it
be derived according to correct relativistic procedure.

23.9 The derivation of the equation by the classical procedure

The equation , which was derived in the previous chapter, is used to derive the equation
. This is done because it is well known that electromagnetic radiation acts on
electrons by exerting pressure. In this way the electron receives energy which is transformed into
mechanical work, i.e. the motion of the electron, which changes the mass of the electron in relation
to its velocity of motion. Such interaction between an electromagnetic field and an electron are well
known as the photoelectric effect, or Compton's effect.
According to Newton's second law

(23.98)

from which follows

(23.99)
or
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 145

(23.100)
If the mass changes with the velocity, as it does with an electron or some other electrified particle,
then
(23.101)
The work of the force on the path is equal to the spent energy so that

(23.102)

By multiplying Eq. (23.101) with we get

(23.103)
From Eqs. (23.102) and (23.103) we have
(23.104)
[Eq. (23.104) can also be derived in this way:

.]
If is the energy of the electromagnetic radiation, then, according to Eq. (23.97)
(23.105)
because the speed of light is constant.
From Eqs. (23.104) and (23.105) we get
(23.106)
After separation of the variables we have

(23.107)

Since, at the speed = 0, the mass of an electron is equal to its mass at rest , and at speed
its mass is equal to the mass , we can write

(23.108)

and from there

Substituting the limits we get

that is

and finally
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 146

or

(23.109)

So another very important, allegedly relativistic equation, which cannot be derived by correct
relativistic procedure using two inertial coordinate systems moving relative to one another, can be
derived according to purely classical procedure. Like , this is not a relativistic but a purely
classical equation.
In connection with these two equations it is necessary to discuss some seeming contradictions.
According to Eq. (23.109) every mass which moves at the speed of light is infinitely large.
Therefore the Eq. (23.109) conflicts with Eq. (23.97) even though this Eq. (23.109) was derived
from Eq. (23.97). From this it necessarily results that the photons and also the energy of
electromagnetic radiation have no mass at all. It also means that electromagnetic radiation is not
corpuscular in nature but only wave like. Because of this we said above that the mass was
ascribed to the energy of light , but not that the energy of light possessed mass .
The pressure exerted by light, or by electromagnetic radiation in general, is not the result of some
real mass, contained in the radiation which moves at the speed of light. The pressure exerted by
light is the result of the electromagnetic wave action on the reflecting conductible layer in the
following way.
The electric field of the electromagnetic wave acts by force on the free electrified particles in the
conductible layer and causes them to move. Well known Lorentz force acts on electrified particles
because of their motion in the magnetic field of the electromagnetic wave. This force is transmitted
to the conductible layer and manifests itself as the pressure exerted by electromagnetic radiation.
The electric and magnetic field of the electromagnetic wave also acts on the ions and electrified
particles bound to the atom. Under the influence of the electric field of an electromagnetic wave
displacement of bound electrified particles occurs in insulators, creating a displacement current.
In fact, the mass that we ascribe to the energy of radiation is electromagnetic mass and is, in fact,
the energy of the electromagnetic field generated by electrified particles in motion. Only such a
"mass", electromagnetic mass or the energy of an electromagnetic field, can move at the speed of
light only and not increase to infinity at this speed.
Consequently, if by mass it is understood electromagnetic mass or the energy of an
electromagnetic field, then Eqs. (23.109) and (23.97) do not conflict. Therefore, the derivation of
Eq. (23.97) using the phenomenon of the Doppler effect, and the total reflection of light radiation,
and also the derivation of Eq. (23.109) on the basis of Eq. (23.97), are logical and correct. The two
equations are closely connected and express the connection between electromagnetic mass and
electromagnetic fields, so that the energy of the electromagnetic field is equal to the
electromagnetic mass and the second power of the speed of light. Therefore Eq. (23.97) should read
(23.110)

where is the electromagnetic mass.

According to Eq. (23.110) we should take the mass of the electron (or some other electrified
particle) at velocity = 0 to be equal to the mass , and at velocity its mass is equal to the
mass . In which case Eq. (23.108) would read
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 147

(23.111)

Solving Eq. (23.111) we get

(23.112)

Electromagnetic mass is the apparent increase in the mass of an electron with velocity. As a result
we can say that the total mass of an electron contains the electromagnetic mass and mass at
rest , and that the electromagnetic mass leaves the electron in the form of electromagnetic
radiation as its speed of motion falls (by braking, on transition from orbit to orbit, or in some other
way).
The velocity , in Eqs. (23.98) to (23.112), is the velocity of motion of an electron relative to an
ether in which the electron moves.
As it is well known that the charge of an electron is negative and the charge of a proton is positive.
However, absolute values of the magnitudes of these two charges are equal. From this results that
an electron and a proton will generate the magnetic fields equal magnitude at the same velocity of
motion. Consequently, the increase of an inertia of the proton in motion must be equal to the
increase of the inertia of the electron in motion. Therefore, the equation (23.112), which relates to
the electromagnetic mass of an electron in motion, for the proton in motion would read

(23.113)

For the same reason, equation (23.109), which relates to the total mass of an electron in motion,
for the proton in motion would read

(23.114)

The correctness of equations (23.113) and (23.114) can be experimentally proved by

measurement of the wavelenght of the braking radiation which originates at the brake of motion of a
proton got by ionization of hydrogen. The proof of the correctness of these two equations would be
great contribution to physics in comprehension of the conception of allegedly change of mass of the
body in motion, and also great contribution in comprehension of mutual relation of mass and the
energy.

23.10 The pressure of electromagnetic radiation, the red shift and the cosmic
rays

The stars emit a continuous spectrum and also line spectrums. From the position of the lines in the
spectrum of the radiation from a star we can determine the chemical composition of the star, since
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 148

every element has a distinctive pattern of lines in its spectrum. The line nature of these spectra make
possible to calculate the velocity of the approach or retreat of the star using equation for the
Doppler effect

(23.115)

where is the wavelength of radiation when the source of radiation is at rest, relative to the
observer, is the wavelength of radiation when the source of radiation is moving relative to the
observer and is the speed of light.
If the body emitting the radiation is retreating from the receiver - observer , then the observer will
notice that the lines shift towards the red end of the spectrum by . This shift of the lines in the
spectrum of starlight is termed red shift. The red shift increases with the radial speed of the star as a
source of radiation, that is with the velocity of its retreat. If the star is moving towards the observer
a blue shift will occur.
When Hubbell studied the spectra of the radiation from distant galaxies in 1929, he discovered
that the characteristic lines in the spectrum of this radiation shifted, en-mass, to the infrared without
changing their relationship. Hubbell also observed that the greater the distance of the observed
galaxy, the greater the red shift. On the basis of this observation it was concluded that the farther
away the galaxy, the faster it is retreating, which means that the universe is expanding. The next
conclusion drawn was that this expansion must have had its beginning. Thus came about the big
bang theory in which the cosmos was "born". Some astronomers assert that, at that moment, space,
matter and time came into existence. It is also asserted that, before the big bang, all the matter in
today's cosmos was concentrated in "primordial atom", whose density was about 1096 kg/m3 [16]
and which was considerably smaller that the size of an electron.
In this way we have come to the conclusion that today's universe is spatially limited, that is, it
contains a limited amount of matter and has a limited age. Einstein asserted the same. Accepting
Friedman's [A. Friedmann, Zeitschr. f. Phys., 10, 377, 1922.] method, he calculated that the
hypothetical density of the matter in the universe was 3.5·10-23 g/cm3 and that the universe is
1.5·109 years old. He claimed that the cosmos is spatially limited in the form of a hypersphere, the
volume of which is and the radius

(23.116)

Today, Einstein's calculations, as given above, are not considered acceptable. The universe is now
considered to be much older and larger. This succeeded thanks to the discoveries that have made
possible the use of much better observation instruments and methods which have enabled the
discoveries of more distant galaxies and thus changed outwards limits of the universe in time, space
and quantity of matter.
So, it turns out that the cosmos is so big as far as we are able to see it. Many allegedly great
scientists accept this strange assertion that the cosmos is limited and that its dimensions enlarge.
All the above mentioned conclusions are based on the accepted explanation of the red shift.
According to this explanation the red shift is the result of the expansion of the universe, or better
put the dispersion of the universe. No other explanation of red shift has been discovered.
However, astronomers discovered, on the base of red shift, that the velocities of removing of the
most distant quasars are about 5.8 times higher that the speed of light. This finding disputes
Hubble's hypothesis about the cause of the red shift, since the speed of light is a maximum possible
speed.
In order to accept the assertion that the cosmos was born in the big bang we must address the
question of what existed before. Regretfully, no such explanation has been forthcoming, and there is
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 149

no logic in the assertion that the whole substance of the universe was concentrated in the "first
atom" for an infinitely long time.
At the same time, in order to accept the idea that the universe is expanding and is spatially limited,
we must consider the question of what is beyond its present limits. Some may say that there is
nothing, but that in turn begs the question, of whether anything can or does exist in that nothing. For
example, does the electromagnetic radiation from the most distant, or other galaxies in some way
penetrate this void?
If electromagnetic radiation spreads beyond these bounds, which it is quite logical to accept, since
the speed of light is higher than the radial velocities of the galaxies and starlight propagates in all
directions, then electromagnetic radiation at least, has to exist outside the so called limits of the
universe.
If the galaxies originated in a big bang, then it would be logical to expect their velocities to
decrease with distance from the place of origin as a result of the constant effect of gravitational
forces originating from the remained mass of the radially dispersing matter. However, allegedly
opposite occurs.
Physicists and astronomers have not an acceptable explanation for this paradox. In connection
with the spreading of the cosmos and dispersion of galaxies Einstein gave very strange hypothesis.
According to that hypothesis the antigravitation exists as well as gravitation.
The proponents of the big bang say that in the cosmos there are about 10 billions galaxies and in
each of them about 10 billions stars, whose average mass is approximately equal to the mass of the
sun. If the total mass of the cosmic gases and dust and the other cosmic bodies is greater even four
times than the mass of all stars in the cosmos is, then the total mass in the cosmos would be about
1051 kg. If the density of the mass in the primordial atom was 1096 kg/m3, as the proponents of the
big bang say as well, then the volume of the primordial atom was 27 times smaller that the volume
of an electron, or 6·1014 times smaller than the volume of the smallest atom.
It is more logical to postulate that after the big bang comes a big collapse, and after the big
collapse again a big bang and so on ad infinitum. This would constitute some form of natural
process of birth and death for galaxies, or groups of galaxies, but not for the whole universe.
The history of science is full of incorrect assertions and hypothesises. The science of astronomy is
no exception. For example, astronomers started with a geocentric system and moved on, via the
heliocentric system to the big bang.
At the same time, many experiments have been performed that failed to produce the desired
results. The Michelson - Morely experiment is a case in point, it has been repeated many times
without a positive result. Sometimes experiments produce quite unexpected results, as was the case
with the Fizeau's test. Indeed, far more experiments produce negative results than positive.
Assertions about the limits of the universe and its age, or its origin in a big bang are difficult to
accept without serious reserve. In connection with this I do not believe that the galaxies are
dispersing radially, but that their courses of motion are governed by the gravitational forces
originating from other galaxies. As a result, the red shift in the spectrum of their radiation cannot be
the result of the Doppler effect, caused by radial dispersion, and must be due to some other cause.
Accordingly, I have dared to put forward a new hypothesis on the cause of the red shift and a test
that might confirm the hypothesis. True, the chances of success for such an experiment are small,
but nonetheless I think it would be worth performing.
The interaction of photons and cosmic rays could be the cause of the red shift. It is known that the
photoelectric effect or Compton's effect and the phenomena of the pressure exerted by light are
based on the interaction of photons and electrified particles, where the photons deliver part or all of
their energy to the electrified particles.
Primary cosmic rays consist of protons, alpha particles, electrons and other electrified particles.
Appearance of those electrified particles in the cosmos is the result of the ionization of cosmic gases
(hydrogen, helium and the others) upon the influence of electromagnetic rays ( -rays, X-rays, UV-
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 150

rays), which originate at the nuclear and other processes in the stars. Besides, high energy cosmic
rays, produced in this way, perform the ionization of the cosmic gases too, and thus produce new
cosmic rays.
When photons interact with these rays, part of their energy is transferred to the electrified
particles. At this point the photon loses energy, and thus, its wavelength is increased. The greater
the distance, that the photon travels through the universe, the greater the chances that it will interact
with electrified particles. The more interactions of this type the greater the energy loss for the
photons and consequently, the greater the red shift. Thus, the fact that photons from the most
remote galaxies have the greatest red shifts is not a result of the Doppler effect caused by the
dispersion of those galaxies. The universe is not expanding, and if that is the case, we have to
accept that there was no beginning of that expansion; in other words, the big bang did not occur. All
the theories about the birth of the universe with the big bang and the temporal and spatial
limitations of the universe may in fact be groundless.
The blue shift observed in the spectra of some galaxies may only occur in the case of relatively
close galaxies that are moving towards the earth. In these circumstances the blue shift may indeed
be caused by the Doppler effect which would cancel out the red shift caused by the interaction of
electromagnetic radiation from these galaxies with cosmic rays.
The energies of the cosmic rays can be up to 1020 eV. Up to now there was no acceptable
explanation of the origin so enormous energies of the cosmic rays. However, in order to explain this
phenomenon, we must know that at every collision of a photon and electrified particle (cosmic ray)
in the cosmos, the photon gives over a part of its energy to electrified particle, and shifts to red.
Therefore, if we have this in mind then we can assert that the origin of the enormous energies of the
cosmic rays can be also explained by the numerous interaction of the cosmic rays and photons ( -
rays, X-rays, UV-rays, and so on).
Electromagnetic radiation also exerts pressure on particles of matter, molecules and the atoms of
gasses. As we mentioned before, this phenomena is well known and can be seen in the tails that
comets develop at perihelion. In this case a portion of the energy of the solar radiation is spent on
mechanical work in the pressure exerted by the radiation on the tail of the comet. Due to the energy
loss at this point the wavelength of the radiation is increased, resulting in a red shift in the spectra of
reflected radiation.
When radiation and particles of matter or gasses interact the scattering of the radiation only occurs
when the particles of matter or the molecules of the gas are large enough in relation to the
wavelength of the radiation, otherwise, the interaction takes place without the occurrence of
scattering. For example, a particle 20 nanometers in diameter will scatter as much light as 1012
separate atoms. Raleigh found that the scattering of light radiation by the molecules of atmospheric
gases is proportionate to the fourth power of the wavelength of the radiation. This factor
shows that the scattering blue radiation ( 400 nm) is six times greater than the scattering of red
color ( 640 nm). As a result, the molecules of the upper atmosphere for the most part, scatter
radiation blue in color, which gives the sky its blue shade.
The scattering of electromagnetic radiation in the earth's atmosphere is a consequence of the
interaction between the electrical and magnetic field of electromagnetic radiation and charged
particles, free, or bonded to atoms, molecules and particles of matter.
In the process of scattering of radiation in the molecules of a gas or the particles of dust or smoke
the molecules and particles are forced to retreat by the pressure of the radiation. As a result the
Doppler effect is observed in the scattered radiation, that is, a red shift is observed in the spectrum
of the scattered radiation. The magnitude of the red shift is proportional to the speed of the retreat
and the velocity of the retreat is proportional to the energy of the radiation spent in the mechanical
work performed under the influence of the pressure force of the radiation. However, when
discussing the scattering of light by the molecules of gasses we should bear in mind that the
scattering occurs in the direction of the movement of the radiation as well. It is clear that during the
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 151

interaction of electromagnetic radiation with the charged particles in the molecules of a gas, the
energy of the radiation is expended in mechanical work. This work is performed during the exertion
of pressure by the radiation upon the molecules of the gas. In conformity with Planck's law an
increase in the wavelength of the radiation occurs.
Consequently we arrive at the conclusion that the red shift may also be the result of interaction
between electromagnetic radiation and the charged particles in the atoms and molecules of gases in
the universe. Similarly we can conclude that the red shift may also appear in the spectrum of solar
radiation after the passage of that radiation through the earth's atmosphere.
The radiation from the sun is more and more red as the sun nears the horizon. This is the result of
the greater attenuation of radiation at shorter wavelengths due to dispersion and absorption by
particles of dust and smoke and gas molecules in the atmosphere. Also the rays of the sun are
passing through the lower layers of the atmosphere close to the ground where the dust and smoke
particles and gasses are most concentrated. It is possible that a red shift occurs at this stage, due to
the interaction of solar radiation with the electrified particles and gas molecules in the atmosphere.
It should also be remembered that the gasses of the atmosphere are partially ionised, and that the
atmosphere contains free charged particles.
It is obvious that the distance travelled by the rays of the sun through the ground layer of the
earth's atmosphere is negligible in comparison with the distance travelled by light from some star.
The density of the atmospheric gasses near the earth's surface is, however much greater than in
intergalactic space. As a result we still cannot exclude the possibility of a slight red shift in the
spectrum of solar radiation at sunrise and sunset. In order to detect such a red shift it would be
necessary to have readings for the spectrum of solar radiation from above the earth's atmosphere,
and to obtain a mean value for the position of the lines in the sun's spectrum at sunrise and sunset.
The spectrum of solar radiation would be taken on the same plane, at sunrise and sunset to ensure
that the distance travelled by the solar radiation through the earth's atmosphere is the same. It would
be necessary to ensure that the spectrum was taken at the maximum possible length of the way of
the sun's rays through the atmosphere and this would demand that the experiment were made under
conditions of excellent visibility, certainly outside urban areas where the density of aerosols is
lower.
The Doppler effect caused by the motion of the spectroscope, in relation to the sun is annulled by
the use of mean values for sunrise and sunset. We should also note that if the earth's ether exists it
will complicate the measurement because we do not know its thickness above the earth and
therefore cannot determine the Doppler shift. For all these reasons the use of mean values for the
lines in the spectrum of solar radiation is recommended.
Instead of the solar spectrum taken above the atmosphere, one could also use the solar spectrum
made at great elevation, when the sun is at its zenith and atmospheric conditions are exceptionally
good. In such circumstances the influence of the atmosphere on the spectrum of the solar radiation
would be at its minimum.
The line spectrums of hydrogen and helium, taken in the laboratory on the earth, can also be used
for the comparison with the line spectrums of hydrogen and helium in the spectrum of the sun's
light coming through the ground layer of the atmosphere.
Finally, the appearance of the redshift in the spectrum of the light passed through earth's
atmosphere can be proved by means of a laser. For that experiment are need a suitable high power
stabilized laser whose radiation is well collimated, and spectrometer for the measurement of the
wavelength of the laser's radiation. The length of the way of the laser beam, from the laser to the
spectrometer, should be as long as possible in order to be realized enough large and measurable
redshift. The length of the way of the laser beam limits the earth's curve and atmospheric
attenuation of the laser's radiation. That length of the way, from the laser to the spectrometer, can be
more than hundred kilometers at exceptionally atmospheric transparency. However, if one use a
special prismatic retroreflector then the length of the way of the laser beam from the laser to the
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 152

retroreflector and back to the spectrometer can be more than two hundred kilometers. The power of
the laser beam can be very high. Besides that the laser's radiation is coherent and its emission line is
very narrow. Consequently this method is simple, easily practicable and the most reliable for the
proving or disproving the hypothesis about the appearance of the redshift in the spectrum of the
light passed through the earth's atmosphere.
If a red shift were discovered in the spectrum of light radiation passing through the atmosphere, in
the manner described above, it would be of great significance to astrophysics and astronomy in the
whole.

24. ON SIMULTANEITY AND RELATIVITY OF LENGTH AND TIME INTERVAL

The main subject of the special theory of relativity are three concepts and they are: simultaneity,
relativity of lengths and relativity of time intervals. Einstein began his work on the theory of
relativity by defining and explaining these concepts in the first and second paragraph of his first
paper in that field [2].
The relativistic way of treating time, simultaneity and space is the subject of many discussions in
different scientific spheres, from physics to philosophy.

24.1 Einstein's determination of simultaneity and relativity of length and time

interval

With regard to the importance of the mentioned concepts and the originality in their treatment, it
is best if the reader gets first hand information on Einstein's exposition. For that purpose we shall
quote here both paragraphs from his first paper on relativity, and then give our commentary on the
quoted material.

Quotation: "§1 Determining simultaneity

Let us take a coordinate system in which are valid the equations of Newton's mechanics. For the
purpose of distinguishing it from later introduced coordinate systems and for the purpose of
defining terminology let us name this coordinate system an "unmoving system".
If a material point is at rest relatively to this coordinate system, then its position relatively to that
system can be determined by the methods of Euclid's geometry with the help of solid ruler and
expressed in Descartes coordinates.
If we want to describe a motion of some material point, we set the values of its coordinates in the
function of time. Thereby we should bear in mind that such a mathematical description has physical
meaning only then when it is previously clarified what is meant by the concept of "time". We
should focus our attention to the fact that in all our judgements, in which time plays some role, the
judgment about simultaneity always appears. If I, for example, say: "That train arrives here at 7
o'clock." That, for example, means the following: "The small hand on my watch showing seven
o'clock and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." [Here will not be considered an
inaccuracy in the conception of the simultaneity of two events, which originate (approximately) in
the same place, which would also be overcome by the help of some abstraction.]
It can be shown that all difficulties in connection with the determining "time" can be overcome if,
instead of the word "time", I write "the position of the small hand on my clocks". Such a decision
really is sufficient only in case when we determine the time for the particular place in which the
clocks are just situated. However, that decision is already insufficient when we should connect,
from the point of view of time, two series of events, one another, which flowing in different places.
In one word, it would determine the time of events which occur in places distant from clocks.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 153

If we want to determine the time of events, we could, of course, satisfy ourselves by compelling
an observer, who is standing with a watch at the origin, to compare corresponding positions of the
watch hands with every light signal coming to him through vacuum and informing him of the
registered event. However, that comparison is connected with the difficulties that we know from
experiments. Namely, it will not be independent of the place where the observer is standing with the
clock. We shall come up with a far more practical determination by means of the following
reasoning.
If a clock is placed at point in space, then the observer, standing at point , can determine the
time of events in the immediate vicinity of point through the simultaneous observation of these
events and the position of the clock hands. If at another point of space there is also a clock (we
add: "The same clock as at the point ") then it is also possible for an observer at point to
assess the time of events in the immediate vicinity of . However, it is impossible to compare,
from the point of view of time, some event at with an event at without making further
assumptions. For now we shall only determine " - time" and " - time", but not the general
"time" for and . The latter can be determined by introducing the definition that the "time"
needed for the passage of light from to equals the "time" needed for the passage of light from
to . At a moment by " - time" let a ray of light come out of towards , let it reflect
at the moment by " - time" from to and return to at the moment by " - time".
The clocks in and will, according to the definition, run in a synchronized manner if
(24.1)
We believe that the determining of simultaneity can be given in an un-contradictory manner and for
an arbitrary number of points and that the following claims are true:
1) If the clock at runs synchronized with the clock at then the clock in runs synchronized
with the clock at .
2) If the clock in runs synchronized with the clock at , as well as with the clock at , then
the clocks at and run synchronized relatively to each other.
In this manner, by using some physical thought experiments, we have determined what should be
understood by synchronized clocks, which are at rest in different places and owing to that we have,
obviously, obtained the definition of the concepts: "simultaneity" and "time". The "time" of events -
that is simultaneously with events indication of clocks at rest, which are placed at the place of the
events and which run synchronized with a certain number of clocks at rest.
In accordance with the experiment we shall also assume that the magnitude

(24.2)

is an universal constant (the speed of light in vacuum).

Having in mind that we determined time with the help of clocks at rest in the system at rest, then
we shall name the time belonging to the system at rest the "time in the system at rest".
§2 On relativity of length and time interval
Further thinking relies on the principle of relativity and the principle of the constancy of the speed
of light. We formulate both principles in the following way:
1) The laws by which the states of physical systems change, do not depend from that on which of
the two systems, moving with uniform translation relatively to each other, these changes of state
refer to.
2) Every ray of light moves in the "unmoving" system of coordinates at a definite speed ,
independently of whether that ray of light is emitted by an unmoving body or a moving body.
Thereby we have
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 154

whereat "time interval" should be understood in the sense of the definition in §1.
Let us take a solid piston at rest and let its length be measured with a ruler, which is also at rest.
Now let us imagine that the piston, whose axis is directed by the -axis of the unmoving
coordinate system, is pushed into gradual motion (at a speed ) uniformly and translatory in the
direction of the growth of value . Let us now question the length of the piston in motion, which
we are intending to determine with the help of two following operations.
a) The observer is moving together with the said ruler and with the measured piston and measures
the length of the piston directly by resting the ruler against the piston, the same as if the measured
piston, observer and measuring device were at rest.
b) With the help of separate unmoving clocks in the unmoving system, which are synchronized, in
the sense of §1, the observer determines in which points of the unmoving system the beginning and
the end of the measured piston are at a certain time . The distance between these two points,
measured by the said procedure, with the ruler at rest, is the length which can be marked as the
"length of the piston".
In accordance with the principle of relativity, the length determined by the operation "a", which
we shall call the "length of the piston in the moving system" should be equal to the length of the
piston at rest.
The length determined by the operation "b", which we shall call "the length (in motion) of the
piston in an unmoving system" will be determined on the basis of our two principles and we shall
find that it is different from .
In the kinematics, which is usually applied, it is taken without objection that the lengths
determined with the help of the two said operations are equal, or, in other words, that a solid body,
which is moving, at a moment in geometrical relation can be completely substituted with the
same body when it is at rest in a certain position.
Let us imagine that clocks are fastened at both ends of the piston ( and ) which are
synchronous with clocks in the unmoving system, that is, their indication respond to the "time in the
unmoving system" in exactly those places in which these clock are situated; consequently these
clocks are "synchronous in the unmoving system".
Let us further imagine that by each clock there is an observer, moving with it, and that these
observers apply on both clocks, as established in §1, the criteria of simultaneity in the working of
the two clocks. At a time [The "time" here signifies the "time in the unmoving system" and
together with the "positions of the hands of the moving clocks, which are situated in that place
under discussion".] let a ray of light come out of , let it reflect at at a time and return to
at a time moment . Taking into account the principle of constancy of the speed of light we find

(24.3)

where is the length of a moving piston, measured in an unmoving system. So, the observer who
is moving together with the piston, will find that the clocks at points and do no run
synchronized, whereas the observers, who are in the unmoving system would claim that the clocks
were synchronized.
So, we see that we should not give an absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity. Two
events which are simultaneous, when observed from one coordinate system, are not understood as
such when observed from the system which is moving relatively to the given system." End of
quotation.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 155

24.2 Objections to Einstein's determination of simultaneity and relativity of

length and time interval

From the above quoted text the reader may have noticed Einstein's following claims.
Every point of space has its time. There is no general time. Thus, for example, point has time
, and point has time . The time in a coordinate system at rest differs from the time in the
moving system, so there is "time in the system at rest" and "time in the moving system". His time is
the position of the small hand on a clock.
Simultaneity can exist only in one coordinate system, in the system which is at rest or in a moving
system. Furthermore, the absolute meaning of time does not exist, since the events which are
simultaneous at the observation from one system are not simultaneous at the observation from
another system which is moving relatively to the given system.
For measuring time and establishing of simultaneity of events clocks are used which work
synchronized in the system at rest or in the system which is moving relatively to the system at rest.
According to Einstein, they cannot work in synchronization in both systems at the same time. The
synchronization of the clocks at and he conditions by the equality of time needed for a light
ray to pass from to with the time needed for the same ray to pass from to , that is
.
He bases the negation of the existence of absolute time and simultaneity on the alleged
impossibility of determining the existence of such time and simultaneity. In fact, this leads in
essence to the assertion that something does not exist because I cannot determine its existence,
thereby I do no take into account my ignorance or lack of equipment for the determination.
With the following examples we can see the problem of determining time and simultaneity.
Let us have a line of boats as in the Fig. 24.1.

Fig. 24.1
When the boats are at rest, clocks on them can be synchronized in the following way. Let us place
boat right in the middle and let us fire a shot from boat . The sound of that shot will be heard
at the same time on boats and and it will be possible to synchronize all clocks to a set, agreed
time, that is their telling of time will be synchronized. When that line of boats is moving, it is
obvious that we can apply the same method again. Sailors who do not know that the boats are
moving relatively to the air, will be convinced that they have synchronized the clocks in and .
However, when the boats are moving then a signal from point will take longer time to reach boat
than boat , because boat is going away from the source of sound, and the boat is coming
towards the sound. That difference depends on the speed at which the line of boats is traveling.
Therefore, it is impossible to synchronize the clocks by that procedure when a line of boats is
moving. However, it would be completely wrong to claim that there are no other technical
possibilities for synchronizing clocks in a given line of boats which is moving. For example, first
the speed of the line of boats can be determined, then the time needed for the sound to travel form
boat to the boats and . On the basis of this data a sound signal should be sent from the boat
in the direction of each of them, which they will receive at the same time and synchronize their
clocks by it. It is clear that thereby a signal sent in the direction should be delayed relatively to
the signal sent in the direction . The delay will be the time difference between the time needed
for the signal to reach boat , which is travelling towards the sound, and boat , which is going
away from the sound.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 156

The precision in determining simultaneity, and thus the precision in synchronizing clocks, in first
case, when the line of boats is at rest, will depend on the precision of determining the distances
and . In the second case, when the line is moving, it will depend on the precision of
determining these distances and also on the precision of determining the speed of motion.
Whether two events are simultaneous or not does not depend on how we seen then and whether
we see them at all. Our judgment whether something is or is not simultaneous does not depend only
on our observation of the moment when a ray of light comes from the scene of an event, but also on
our knowledge related to the event and the scene of the event. Thus, for example, two men are
observing the explosion of a star through telescopes. One of them knows nothing about the distance
to the star, and the other one is an astronomer. The fist one will think that the star explosion is
happening at the same time as he is observing the star, while the other will know that it happened in
a remote past, maybe even a million years ago, if the star is a million light years away from us.
From this example we see that a subjective judgment of simultaneity is unreliable.
With the development of social community, grew the need for common general time. Prehistoric
man had no such need. For him the time of his zone of motion around a cave was sufficient.
However, developed societies can not even be imagined with such segmented time.
In principle, we measure time with the course of events. For example, for the ancient Egyptians
the flooding of the Nile was such an event. It happened every year and so they could count years by
it. With time man defined and measured time better and better.
All determinations, both of position and time are relatively to something. Today, the whole world
time is measured relatively to the moment of the sun passing above zero longitude. Moreover,
relatively to that moment the earth is divided into 24 time zones. In each time zone all clocks, at the
same moment relatively to the passage of the sun above zero longitude show in advance defined
time. Thus our civilization has a general earth time in a wide and narrow sense. If there was a need
for general galactic or cosmic time then we would have to find a possibility of connecting the zero
time to some galactic that is cosmic event.
The existence of general time on earth is imposed by the need to coordinate the activities of
people all over the world. By using time, defined in this manner, we can, for example, bring about
the simultaneity of two events in any two points in the world, at rest or moving, with a precision
which equals the precision of registering the simultaneity of two events in the immediate vicinity.
Such possibilities exist thanks to the agreed way of determining - measuring time, human
knowledge and achieved technical capacities. If the determination of simultaneity and the
measurement of time were as disputable and inaccessible as Einstein maintains, then modern
systems of remote guidance, from various military systems to the systems for cosmic research
would not exist.
The way in which Einstein treats time and simultaneity, concerning knowledge of events and
physical processes on which the judgment of time and simultaneity are based, is of poor quality. It
is subjective and adjusted so that the reader reaches wrong conclusions determined beforehand,
which will serve for the further derivation of new wrong conclusions. That this is really the case can
be seen in the next chapter, number 2, in which relativity of lengths and time intervals is studied.
When talking about the relativity of lengths and time intervals Einstein uses a piston length ,
which is at rest or it is moving at a constant speed along the -axis, so that the piston axis matches
with the -axis. He also uses a ruler with which he measures the piston at rest and in motion.
When the piston is at rest an observer measures the length of the piston by holding the ruler against
the piston and in that way he determines that the piston's length equals . Then the observer moves
with a ruler and the piston together (for example in a train). Then, again the observer in motion
holds the ruler against the piston and determines again that the piston's length is . In that way the
observer finds that the length of a piston at rest equals the length of a moving piston, when the
measurement is performed by the observer who moves together with the piston. In short it means
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 157

that the length of the piston at rest is equal to the length of the piston in motion, when that length is
measured in a moving system in which the piston is at rest.
The third measurement method is more complex, since the observer, who is at rest, should
measure the length of a moving piston. That is the same as if the observer from the railway
embankment measured the length of a wagon of a fast train, going past him. It is clear that in this
case he cannot measure the length of the wagon by holding a ruler against the outer wall of the
wagon. Therefore Einstein uses a different kind of measurement. In that measurement he uses light
rays and clocks. And that is where the great deception in the construction of the theory of
relativity begins - the deception on which this theory is based.
In this experiment he uses two clocks, one of which fixed to the beginning of the piston at point
, and the other to the end of the piston at point . He also puts the source of light at point ,
and a mirror at point which reflects light back to point . With the piston, which is at rest, thus
equipped, he checks whether the clocks are synchronized, in the way that is described in the quoted
text and the Eq. (24.1) on the equality of time intervals

where and are the times shown by the clock at point (beginning of the piston), and is the
time shown by the clock at point (the end of the piston). The time interval is the time
needed for a ray of light sent from point to reach point , and the time interval is the
time needed for the same light ray, after being reflected from the mirror at point , to return to
point . Since then the clocks will be synchronized if the equality of time interval given
by the Eq. (24.1) is satisfied.
In that manner he determines that the clocks are synchronized. On the basis of the measured time
intervals and the light speed he finds that the piston's length is
(24.4)
After making adjustments in this way, checking that the clocks are synchronized and determining
the length of the piston, he puts the equipped piston into a state of motion at a constant speed and
repeats the experiment to check whether the clocks are working in synchronization.
A schematic representation of the experiment is given in the Figs. 24.2.1, 24.2.2 and 24.2.3. Fig.
24.2.1 gives the starting position of the piston, that is the state at the moment when a light ray starts
from point (the beginning of the piston) towards point . In Fig. 24.2.2 the position of the
piston at the moment when the ray arrives at the mirror at point (the end of the piston) is shown,
and Fig. 24.2.3 gives the position of the piston at the moment when the ray reflected from the
mirror at point arrives back at point . The starting position of the piston is given in full lines;
the second position of the piston (when the ray arrives at point ) is given in interrupted lines and
the third position (when the ray arrives back in the point ) in dotted lines.

Fig. 24.2.1 Fig. 24.2.2 Fig. 24.2.3

As the pictures show, the ray passes from point towards point . The time (moment) of the
start of the ray from point towards point is noted by an observer on the basis of the time
shown by the clock at point . From that moment the ray moves towards point . During that
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 158

time while the ray is moving at speed towards the mirror, the piston with the mirror is moving in
the same direction so that the mirror is moving ahead by the length and arrives from point at
point . Therefore, to reach the mirror, the ray had to cover the distance . As we know, if
the piston had not moved, the ray would have covered only the distance which is equal to the length
. This means that because of the piston's motion the ray had to cover a longer distance, and more
time is needed for this, so

(24.5)

Because of that, the time needed for the ray to arrive at point when the piston is at rest will
differ from the time needed for the ray to arrive at point when the piston is moving. The
observer will see that a time difference in the arrivals of the ray occurred, and Einstein would
conclude, of course wrongly and probably intentionally, that the time shown by the clocks changed
because, as a result of motion, the rhythm of the clock "ticking" changed, and not because the
length of the path covered by the light ray changed.
While the ray returns, after being reflected from the mirror, at point covers a distance shorter
than the length of the piston because the beginning of the piston (point ) is coming towards the
light ray at the speed , so

(24.6)

The observer will notice that the time of the ray's return, according to the clock at when the
piston is moving, differs from the time of the return of the ray when the piston is at rest. Einstein
concludes that this clock also changed its "rhythm of ticking" because of its motion. However, it is
clear that time intervals changed because of the change in the length of the ray's path, so that
(24.7)
And also
(24.8)
As has already been said, Einstein deduces a conclusion, which is obviously wrong, that the
clocks stop being synchronized as soon as they start moving and because of that the concept of
simultaneity should not be given absolute meaning.
Einstein's previous experiment with a piston can be made with sound instead of light. However, in
that case, at the same length and the speed of piston motion, the disagreement between the clocks
would go up by around 1012 times, because the speed of sound is about 106 times smaller than the
speed of light. Naturally, with experiments where sound is used, the speed of piston motion must be
less than the speed of sound.
The clocks at rest can be synchronized even when they are far apart, by using the procedure and
the requirement given by Eq. (24.1). Accordingly, a moving piston can be of any length, and still
the clocks at its end would go on working in a synchronized manner.
In the theory of relativity it is claimed that the de-synchronized function of the clocks which were
synchronized while at rest occurs because of the motion of those clocks. However, it is not
mentioned anywhere that the de-synchronization is also a function of the piston length, that is the
distance between the clocks. De-synchronization is reduced with the reduction of the piston length,
so the clocks, which are placed next to each other "tick" in rhythm, that is they are synchronized,
independently of that how fast they move. The reason for this is clear from the explanation given in
Figs. 24.2.1, 24.2.2 and 24.2.3, and which can be summarized thus: the greater the distance between
the clocks, the greater the de-synchronization, because the light needs to travel not only the distance
but also the additional distance , for which the piston moves while the light travels the distance
. That move is proportional to the length and the speed at which the piston moves.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 159

The explanation given above of the different time taken by light rays to pass along the piston
when it is at rest and when it is in motion is based on the real situation and is not in accordance with
the theory of relativity; neither is Einstein's discussion of the synchronisation of the clock at rest
and in motion. The fundamental principle of the theory of relativity is the constant velocity of light
which will be the same in both systems, and . Also, according to this theory, the length of
the piston is the same in all systems in which the piston is at rest.
As a result, if the light source, the mirror and the clocks are fastened to the ends of the piston as
Einstein describes in §2 quoted above, then, according to the theory of relativity, the time taken for
the light rays to pass from the beginning to the end of the piston and vice versa must be the same,
whether the piston is at rest in system or moves with system . In both cases, according to the
theory, the speed of light relative to the piston is the same, and the length of the piston is the same
too, since the piston is at rest in the system in which the measurement is made. Therefore, the
observer who moves with the piston would not be able to perceive the change in the time taken for
the rays to pass along the piston and would not be able to conclude that the clocks which are in
motion do not work in the same rhythm as the clocks that are at rest. In reality the clocks will work
in the same rhythm but they will show different times taken by the light rays to pass along the
piston, for the reason explained before in Figs. 24.2.1 24.2.2 and 24.2.3.
As a result Einstein's claim, that synchronized clocks while at rest lose synchronization when
moving, is unfounded and that physical process in the given thought experiment with a piston and a
clock in motion is incorrectly analyzed and interpreted in order to lead the reader astray and make
him accept the claim that time and length change only because of motion.
In the text quoted in §2, when assessing the synchronization of the clocks, Einstein says: "Taking
into account the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, we find

(24.3)

where is the length of a moving piston measured in an unmoving system."

With the two given Eqs. (24.3) at the very beginning of his work on the theory of relativity
Einstein negated his postulate that the speed of light in vacuum is the maximum speed in nature and
his theorem on the addition of speeds, according to which the sum and the difference of the speed of
light and any other speed equals the speed of light. Since, if the speed of light is the maximum
possible speed then using the expression becomes senseless since, according to him the speed
does not exist. Also, if his theorem on the addition of speeds is correct, why does he then use
the expressions and in the Eq. (24.3), and later in other equations, where it is simpler
instead to use only . However, if he did that, he could not derive his equations and draw his
conclusions, or the conclusion in connection with Eqs. (24.3).
Einstein claims that the theory of relativity is a theory of principles. However, we can conclude
that the theory of relativity have some declared principles, but it does not keep to these principles,
and thus it is not a theory of principles. Many of its key claims are in conflict. Many of its findings
are incorrect, and nearly all are derived in an unacceptable fashion. Consequently, the theory of
relativity is not a consistent scientific theory, if it can be called a scientific theory at all.

25. THE PROBLEM OF MOTION IN THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

All the equations in the theory of special relativity were derived by use of two inertial coordinate
systems. In the deriving of equations it is taken that the first coordinate system is unmoving and
that the second coordinate system moves at a speed relative to the first. Such an approach to
the problem of motion makes sense only from the view point of mathematics. However it is
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 160

unacceptable from the view point of physics, because in nature everything is in motion. Besides, the
theory of relativity does not accept the possibility of the existence of an ether.
When we say that one body moves then we keep always in mind the change of the positions of
that body with time relative to a second body. However, this second body can be in motion or at rest
relative to a third body. At the same time this third body can be in motion or at rest relative to a
fourth body, etc.
Let us consider two examples of motion in order to clarify this point.
We shall consider, as a first example, the case of two travelers in a passenger train moving at a
speed relative to the railway and to the railroad embankment.
The first traveler is sitting quietly in the coach. In that way he moves at the speed , together
with the train, relative to the railway.
The second traveler moves through the coach at a speed relative to the coach, but in the
opposite direction to the motion of the train. In that way he moves at the speed relative to the first
traveler sitting quietly. However, he does not change his position and stays at rest relative to the
railway and to the railroad embankment.
Now we put the question: "Which of these two travelers is moving and which is unmoving, to
which traveler should we connect the unmoving coordinate system and which the moving
system ?"
In this case it is obvious that for both of these travelers it can equally well be asserted that they are
unmoving or in motion. So, there is no sure solution. This case comes to be more indefinite if we
take into consideration that all are in motion: the earth around the sun, the sun together with the
earth in our galaxy, our galaxy with the galactic group, etc. In brief, all are in motion, from having
the smallest elementary particles even to the group of galaxies.
Lorentz connected the unmoving coordinate system to the quiescent cosmic ether. Such a
solution would make sense if the quiescent cosmic ether existed.
The second example of motion, which we shall consider, is more complex. It will be used to
demonstrate the incorrectness of the theory of relativity and to support of the hypothesis of the
existence of the earth's ether.
For that purpose let us connect the unmoving system to the sun and the moving system to
the earth. Let us suppose that on the earth there is a large rocket launcher with a rocket. The rocket
launcher with the rocket are moving in the system , together with the earth, at a speed =30
km/s. However, the rocket launcher does not move in the system connected to the earth.
Let we suppose that the rocket has been started from the launcher in the opposite direction to the
direction of motion of the earth. Let the speed of the flight of the rocket, in the system
connected to the earth, be =-30 km/s. In this case the rocket will be at rest relative to the system
, which is connected to the sun. Therefore, the system can be connected to the moving rocket
too. In this way we connect the unmoving system to the moving rocket. Consequently, we can
put the question again: "Which system is really unmoving and which is moving?" However, there is
no sure solution as in the previously mentioned case of two travelers in the coach of the moving
train.
The state of motion of the launcher does not change after the start of the rocket. It will continue to
move together with the earth and its speed in the system will remain =30 km/s.
If we apply the theory of relativity to this case, in order to calculate the increase of mass due to
motion in the system , then we shall find the results which are quite opposite to the theory of
relativity. The mass of the rocket will allegedly decrease after its start, because the rocket ceases to
move in the system . However, the mass of the rocket launcher will allegedly stay increased in
the system , because the launcher moves in that system.
The above assertions cannot be proved because the rocket and rocket launcher are neutral bodies.
I said before that the equation (23.l09) was valid for the mass of an electron in motion only.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 161

Therefore, let us take two electrons instead of the rocket and rocket launcher. In this way we will be
able to prove the above given assertions.

Let us assume that the first electron of the pair of electrons is moving, like the started rocket, and
let the second electron be at rest on the earth like the rocket launcher.
In physics it is well known that an electron in motion on the earth generates a magnetic field. Its
mass is increased according to the equation (23.109). Also it is well known that an electron at rest
on the earth does not generate a magnetic field and therefore its mass is equal to the so-called mass
at rest. Accordingly, the increase of mass will originate with the first electron which moves on the
earth like the started rocket.
Let us consider what happens relative to the system connected to the sun.
The first electron moving on the earth at the speed =-30 km/s is at rest in the system and
relative to the sun. On the contrary, the second electron, which is unmoving on the earth and in the
system , is moving relative to the system and to the sun at the speed =30 km/s. Now we
put the question: "Which of these two electrons has a greater mass in the system ; the first which
is unmoving in that system, or the second which is moving in that system?"
In the theory of relativity it is decidedly asserted that there is no increase in mass of the body, in
the system in which the body is at rest. Therefore, according to the theory of relativity the first
electron, which is moving on the earth and at rest in the system , cannot have increased in mass
in the system . However, if we stop the motion of the first electron relative to the earth then that
electron will release the magnetic field generated by its motion. The energy of that field will be
emitted in the form of an electromagnetic braking radiation, which can be detected in the system
. In this way, the mass of the first electron will be decreased by emission of the braking radiation.
After that the first electron starts to move together with the earth like the second electron.
The observer from the sun, and from the system connected to the sun, will see that the first
electron stops being at rest and has started to move together with the earth at the speed =30 km/s.
That observer will also see that the first electron emits an electromagnetic wave at the start of its
motion together with the earth. However, this phenomenon is contrary to the known laws of physics.
In fact, in physics a starting radiation has never been observed, but only the braking radiation. The
generated magnetic field leaves the electron in the form of electromagnetic radiation only at the
decrease of speed of motion of the electron. Considering that the mass of the electron is decreased
by emission of the braking radiation, one can conclude that the mass of the electron in motion in a
coordinate system can be less than the mass of the electron at rest in that system. This phenomenon,
which happens in reality, is contrary to the theory of relativity.
From the above it can be seen that we should not take into consideration the motion only as the
cause of some phenomenon, as it is done in the theory of relativity. We have to take into
consideration not only the motion, but also the physical processes, which happen in the process of
motion, as the circumstances in which that motion is performed.
In connection with the above we must put a key question: "Why does an electron generate a
magnetic field in motion on the earth, and why that electron does not generate a magnetic field in
motion together with the earth relative to the sun?" Up to now, nobody has asked this question so
that there is no ready answer. However, for the moment, there is only one logical answer and one
logical explanation. The answer and the explanation are to be found in the existence of the earth's
ether and in the recognition that an electron generates a magnetic field in motion relative to the
ether only.
Electromagnetic braking radiation originates at the decrease of the speed of motion of an electron
relative to the earth's ether, when it moves in that ether.
An unmoving electron on the earth and relative to the earth's ether does not generate a magnetic
field independently of its speed of motion relative to the sun or to any other body in the cosmos.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 162

When we talk about the ether let us return to the Lorentz hypothesis on the contraction of a body
in motion through the ether. Lorentz gave a coefficient of the contraction, but it cannot be accepted,
because it is derived under an incorrect supposition. Namely, he considered that there was an
absolute quiescent ubiquitous cosmic ether, through which the earth moved. Therefore, Lorentz
considered that the Michelson's interferometer, during the Michelson-Morley's experiment, moved
through the cosmic ether together with the earth. That motion through the ether was allegedly the
cause of the shortening of the interferometer's branch in the direction of motion of the
interferometer, and that this shortening was the cause of the failure of the experiment. However,
that supposition was incorrect. In fact, the interferometer was at rest in the earth's ether so that there
was not motion relative to the ether and this was the real cause of the unsuccessfulness of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. In fact, the unsuccessfulness of the Michelson-Morley experiment is
proof of the existence of the earth's ether.

26. ANTIMATTER AND THE ANNIHILATION OF MATTER AND ANTIMATTER

DO NOT EXIST
The discovery of the positron in 1933 was followed by the opening of a peculiar and extremely
interesting field in physics, the field of antimatter. It was a big surprise, both for physicists and
astronomers, philosophers and all those who deal with the question of the origin and composition of
the material world.
When the positron was discovered it was established that it had the same mass as an electron and
that its charge was of the same magnitude as an electron, but of the opposite sign, which is why it
got the name of positron.
Proof that the positron is antimatter and that it, as such, annihilates in contact with matter was
experimentally obtained immediately following its discovery. Even at that early stage it was
established that positrons disappeared very shortly after their appearance, and that from the place of
the disappearance two gamma rays of the same energy of 0.511 MeV were emitted. Since that
energy equal the product of an electron mass (or positron) and the speed of light squared, it was
concluded that the positron was antimatter and therefore its contact with an electron brings about
their destruction - annihilation. In that process their masses disappear by being transformed into the
energy of radiation, as predicted by famous equation
(26.1)
Thus the existence of not only antimatter and annihilation of matter and antimatter were
confirmed, but also the correctness of the claim that matter changes into energy according to the Eq.
(26.1).
Later other particles of antimatter were discovered, and the natural symmetry, that for every
particle of matter there is a particle of antimatter, was confirmed.
Nevertheless, despite everything said above, a detailed analysis of the interaction of positron and
electron, puts the claim about the existence of their annihilation as well as the claim that the
positron is antimatter into doubt. We will now attempt to put this assertion to the proof.
To develop that proof it is necessary to establish the energy of the magnetic field which electrons
and positrons, as electrically charged particles, generate with their motion. At the same time, we
need to establish an electron's radius dependent on its speed of motion and particularly at the
moment of their collision. Afterwards, using Coulomb's law, we need to determine the kinetic
energy of an electron and positron at the moment of their collision. By comparing the amount of
magnetic and kinetic energy with the energy of gamma rays emitted from their collision, we come
to the demanded proof that the radiation energy originates from the kinetic energy, that there is no
annihilation and that the positron is not antimatter.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 163

26.1 The energy of a magnetic field and the radius of an electron in motion

This calculation is true for the positron too, because the energy of a moving electron's magnetic
field equals the energy of the magnetic field of a positron moving at the same speed.
If we consider that an electron has a spherical shape then its radius is easiest to calculate by using
the equation for the electrostatic energy of an electron. Such a calculation is most often found in
expert publications. However, it does not give an electron's radius depending on the speed of its
motion. To calculate the radius of an electron dependent on the speed of its motion we should use
the equation for the energy of magnetic field, which the electron, as an electrically charged particle,
generates with its motion. That calculation was given by Lorentz in his Electromagnetic theory, and
after him Robert A. Millikan [17], and we use it here, with minor alteration.
The energy of magnetic field per unit volume is given by
(26.2)
The strength of the magnetic field at the distance from the electrical charge in motion in the

charge plane is , where is the electrical charge, and is its speed. Besides, the strength of
the magnetic field at a point at the distance from the electrical charge, where is the angle
between and the motion direction, is given by

(26.3)

From there it follows that the total energy of the magnetic field, created by the effect of the
electrical charge in motion is
(26.4)

where is an element of volume, and the integration is extended all over space. However, by
expressing it with , , and , we have
(26.5)
Therefore, the total energy is

(26.6)

Since the kinetic energy is , then the radius of the sphere of an electrical charge in
motion is found by putting

(26.7)

and from there

(26.8)

This is true while is small in comparison to the speed of light.

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 164

Lorentz, and then Millikan found that an electron's radius, at speeds considerably lower than the
speed of light equals 1.9·10-15 m. By using more precise, later determined, values for the mass and
electrical charge of an electron we get that at speeds considerably lower than the speed of light, an
electron's radius is

When an electron is moving faster, the classical expression for kinetic energy in the
Eq. (26.7) cannot be used, since with the increase of speed the magnetic field created by its motion
is increased, and that is manifested as an increase in the electron's mass. Because of that we should
use a formula for kinetic energy which takes into account an increase of an electron's mass with its
speed in the Eq. (26.7)

(26.9)

Combining Eq. (26.9) with (26.7) and by solving for a gives

(26.10)

By using the Eq. (26.10) the values for an electron's radius depending on its speed are calculated
and given in the Table 26.1.
As can be seen from the table an electron's radius is reduced with the increase of speed. However,
it should be stressed that the reduction is not according to the equation , given
by Lorentz. With the increase of speed the disagreement grows. For the sake of comparison, the
table also gives the values of radius calculated according to Lorentz's given equation.

Table 26.1

0.001 1.8786 1.8786

0.1 1.864 1.869
0.2 1.822 1.841
0.3 1.751 1.791
0.4 1.650 1.722
0.5 1.518 1.628
0.6 1.353 1.503
0.7 1.150 1.342
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 165

0.8 0.902 1.127

0.866025403 0.70448507 0.939
0.9 0.588 0.819
0.95 0.385 0.587
0.98 0.224 0.374
0.99 0.151 0.265
The radius of an electron is most precisely calculated and given for the case of the moment of the
collision with the positron when its speed is . At that speed an electron's radius
is 0.70448507·10-15 m, and the energy of its magnetic field, according to Eq. (26.9), equals the
energy of its allegedly annihilation. At the same speed and radius, a positron also creates a magnetic
field of the same energy. From this it can be seen that the energy of two gamma rays 0.511 MeV
each, emitted at the moment of a positron and electron collision, originates from the energy of the
magnetic, or to be more precise, the electromagnetic fields of the electron and the positron, and not
from their annihilation. This is one proof that there is no annihilation when electron and positron
collide. In further text we will give another proof, based on the well known Coulomb's law.

26.2 The kinetic energy of electron and positron at the moment of their collision

Considering that an electron and positron have, quantitatively, the same electrical charge, but of
the opposite sign, that means that a force of attraction operates between them according to
Coulomb's law

(26.11)

where is the distance of the centers of the spheres of electron and positron.
The work done by the force of attraction on the road to the collision is transformed into the energy
of motion, that is the kinetic energy of each of them. In the course of that process, before the
collision the electron and positron cover half of the mutual distance , therefore the kinetic energy
of the electron, and also of the positron, is given by

(26.12)

where is the distance of the centers of spheres of electron and positron at the moment of the
collision, that is .
To prove that the kinetic energy of electron and positron, at the moment of their collision, changes
into radiant energy, in the form of two gamma rays, we need to prove that the collision occurs when
the energy reaches the value of = 0.511 MeV = 8.18710414·10-14 J and that then the distance
of the centers of the spheres of electron and positron equals the sum of the radiuses of these
spheres. Therefore, taking that

(26.13)

we find that
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 166

So, as is shown, the required distance , at which the kinetic energies equal , is the
distance at which the collision occurs, that is it equals the sum of the radiuses of electron and
positron. The size of that radius was calculated earlier by using the equation for the energy of the
magnetic field and the condition that the energy equals .
So the second way of calculation, based on the well known Coulomb's law, confirms that electron
and positron, at the moment of collision, posses kinetic energies which equal , and which
transform into the energy of the two gamma rays which modern physics claims that it is the product
of the annihilation of electron and positron.
If annihilation really occurred then the energy of radiation would have to be two times larger than
the well known energy = 2·0.511 MeV, which has been proved by experiment many
times.
If, despite of the above given proofs, there were those who still claimed that annihilation of
electron and positron really occurred, then they would be under the obligation to explain
what happened to the kinetic energies of the two particles at the moment of their collision and
alleged disappearance through annihilation.
In connection to this it is worth reminding ourselves that an electron's kinetic energy is also
transformed into radiation in case of braking radiation (bremsstrahlung), or with the very well
known X-ray radiation (Röntgen radiation). For example, for the realization of X-ray radiation an
electron is accelerated up to a certain speed with the help of high electrical voltage. Hence,
electrical energy is put in so that electrons can achieve a certain speed, and together with it a certain
kinetic energy. When the electron hits the anode, its kinetic energy changes into X-ray radiation.
The energy of X-rays thus produced is proportional to the kinetic energy of electrons before they hit
the anode.
Bearing in mind the well known fact that energy can neither be destroyed or disappear without
trace, then we are compelled to conclude that the kinetic energies of electrons and positrons
changed only their form of existence, that is they changed into the energy of gamma radiation. And
since the energies of these gamma rays originates from the kinetic energies then we are also
compelled to conclude that annihilation does not exist at all, at least as far as allegedly the best
known and studied case of annihilation in physics - the annihilation of electron and positron, which
is commonly accepted as a main proof that matter allegedly changes into energy, and also that
antimatter allegedly exists.

26.3 The positron is not antimatter

The coincidence that the kinetic energy of an electron and a positron at the moment of their
collision equals exactly, has deluded physicists into accepting the annihilation of electron and
positron, resulting in the belief that the positron, as well as other later discovered particle, belong to
that new and fictional category in physics, antimatter. Thus, with the discovery of the positron the
existence of antimatter seemed to be confirmed.
Physicists believe that the positron, as antimatter, cannot survive in the presence of matter, and so,
the argument goes, that is why it does not exist in nature. That claim is based on the fact that the
positron after its appearance quickly disappears with the earlier described phenomenon of radiation
from the place of disappearance.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 167

However, it has been known for a long time that the atomic nucleus of some elements emit
positrons. So, for example, in 1934 Irene Curie and her husband Pierre discovered that boron,
magnesium and aluminum emit positrons after the bombardment of the same elements with alpha
particles. Then in the case of boron it was established that the time of the radioactive half-decay in
such radiation is 14 minutes. In this case positrons come from the atomic nucleus which is a
confusing fact. If the positron is antimatter then its annihilation would have to occur in the atom's
nucleus, which is an extremely dense concentration of matter. Because of that it should be
impossible for a particle of antimatter to issue from an atomic nucleus. Nevertheless, it does occur.
When we take into account everything said above, it turns out that the positron, the earliest
discovered and best known representative of antimatter, is not antimatter at all and that as such, it
does not annihilates with matter. In other words, antimatter does not exist.

26.4 A new neutral particle - the ELPOTRIN

Under the influence of the special theory of relativity in modern physics it is claimed that energy
can change into matter, which is the reverse process from the process of annihilation where the total
matter of a particle changes into energy. The main proof used for this is the appearance of positron-
electron pairs when matter is exposed to gamma rays whose energies are equal to or grater than
1.022 MeV. This alleged transformation of energy into matter is well known and confirmed many
times by experiment. It is interesting to note that the appearance of the pairs is possible only in the
presence of matter, and that it is not known what role matter plays in that insufficiently studied
physical process. It is also well known that cosmic rays, whose energies can be up to 1020 eV, in
collision with atoms produce showers of positron-electron pairs. This phenomenon is also claimed
to be the result of the transformation of cosmic radiation energy into matter or, to put it more
precisely, into matter and antimatter.
The above claim is wrong, the appearance of positron-electron pairs does not represent a
transformation of energy into matter, there is no creation of new particles, because these particles -
pears originate from the atomic nucleus. It is clear that in the process connected to this pair-
appearance a part of the energy of cosmic or gamma rays (whose energies are greater than the
binding energy of the elpotrin) causes an increase in the speed of motion, and thus also an increase
in the mass of electrons and positrons. As was said earlier the increase in the electromagnetic mass
of electrically charged particles in motion is the result of the magnetic field being generated, which
resists further increase in the speed of particles. Hence, in the process of the appearance of electron-
positron pairs new particles are not created on account of energy expenditure.
Electrons and positrons do not disappear in collision in the form of radiation, but form a new, still
unidentified, neutral particle whose mass is double the mass of an electron. That new particle could
be called an ELPOTRIN, which is an abbreviation from electron and positron and resembles the
hypothetical particle neutrino. The elpotrin's binding energy is 1.022 MeV. Proof for this, and
generally for the existence of the positron in matter is the appearance of positron-electron pairs at
the moment when the matter is exposed to gamma rays whose energies are equal to or greater than
the elpotrin's binding energy.
In 1927 Pauli suggested that during a -transformation another particle is emitted at the same
time as the -particle. He called this hypothetical particle a neutrino. It has no charge and its mass
is insignificant making it invisible to existing methods of detection.
Allegedly certain confirmation of the existence of free neutrinos was provided as late as 1953 in
experiments conducted by F. Reines and C. Cowan. It is claimed that, on that occasion, a huge flux
of antineutrinos was created in a powerful fission reactor which acted upon the protons in the
following way
(26.14)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 168

The protons were bombarded by antineutrinos and then they allegedly got neutrons
and positrons , that is, protons, positrons, electrons and antineutrinos.
The interaction (26.14) must be taken with reserve, even though the two scientists involved
received the Nobel Prize for their proof of the existence of the neutrino.
The first doubt about this proof of the existence of the neutrino arises from the fact that there is, in
fact, no concrete proof that antineutrinos actually took part in the interaction, this is just a
supposition.
The second doubt centres on the authenticity of the interaction bearing in mind the laws on the
conservation of the number of particles and electricity. Two particles enter into given interaction;
the antineutrino and the proton. And four particles emerge from it: positron and neutron, which
disintegrates into a proton, electron and antineutrino whose presence has not been proved either.
A far more realistic explanation of the experiment is based on the bombardment of protons with
elpotrins rather than antineutrinos. In this case the interaction would be as follows
(26.15)

where is an elpotrin that consists of an electron and a positron . From interaction

(26.15) we find that the experiment mentioned proves the existence of the elpotrin but not the
existence of the neutrino.

26.5 The composition and nature of matter

The greater the energy of the gamma radiation to which matter is exposed, the more complete is
the fragmentation of the atomic nucleus and its parts, and consequently the more numerous are the
electron-positron pairs which appear at that moment. This fact as well as the fact that only neutral
particles and those with a single charge (negative or positive) have been discovered, lead us to the
conclusion that all matter is composed of only two basic particles. These are the particle with a
negative electrical charge, named the electron, and the particle with a positive electrical charge,
named the positron. All other stable and unstable particles are a combination of those two. That
again leads us to the conclusion that in nature the number of electrons equals the number of
positrons and in that way symmetry and the equilibrium of electrical charge have been established.
Relatively to electrical charge one more thing should be noted. The total kinetic energy of an
electron, and a positron, calculated by using Coulomb's law according to the Eq. (26.13), equals the
energy of the magnetic field generated by its motion.
If an electron had a mass, in the classical sense, then its total energy of motion, calculated on the
basis of Coulomb's law, would consist of the kinetic energy of that mass in motion and the energy
of the magnetic field which it, as an electrically charged particle, generates with its motion.
However, it is surprising that an electron in motion does not posses, in the classical sense, the
kinetic energy of a mass in motion. Its total kinetic energy consists only of the energy of its
magnetic field. This is also proved here by comparing the amount of energy of the magnetic field
and the kinetic energy of an electron when it collides with a positron. In both cases they equal
. On the basis of these facts for now only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn, and that is
the following. The total mass of an electron and a positron, and matter in general, is of
electromagnetic nature.
However, if the electron has any mass at all, in the classical sense, then its size is far less than its
mass , which is said to be the mass of an electron at rest, whereby it is forgotten that an electron
is never at rest, because it has its spin, which is known for certain. Also, when talking about an
electron, other kind of motion, such as, for example, oscillatory motions, should not be excluded. In
connection with that we need to know that the masses of elementary particles inside an atom are
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 169

less than the masses of these particles when they are at rest outside of the atom. We have seen
before that the mass, or more exact said the inertia, of an electrically charged particle depends on a
velocity of motion of that particle. Having in mind these facts we can conclude that the realized
energy by nuclear fision and fussion originate from kinetic energy of the particles of an atomic
nucleus Accordingly, we can also conclude that the defect of the mass of some atomic nucleus is, in
fact, the defect of kinetic energy of the particles of atomic nucleus.
In connection with the above said, we can summarize it in brief:
- There is no antimatter nor annihilation of positron and electron;
- The energy of gamma radiation, which appears at the moment of positron-electron collision,
originates from the kinetic energy of positron and electron;
- The positron does not disappear when it collides with an electron, but instead, it forms with it a
new, still unknown, neutral particle which we have named the ELPOTRIN;
- The mass of the elpotrin is 1.8219·10-30 kg, and the binding energy is 1.022 MeV;
- All matter is composed of only two basic particles, those being the electron and the positron, and
- Mass and matter are totally of electromagnetic nature.

27. DE BROGLIE'S PERPETUAL MOTION

With the explanation of the photo-electrical effect the idea that light is dualistic in nature, particle
(photons) and waves (electromagnetic wave) has become generally accepted. Also, from the
relation and equivalence of mass and energy it results that every mass is accompanied by energy
and energy is accompanied by mass . Consequently, every photon of energy
has the mass

(27.1)

and also the momentum

(27.2)

from which it results that the wavelength of the photon is

(27.3)

where is the Planck constant.

Therefore a beam of light possesses the momentum , which also results from
electrodynamics. The existence of this momentum is considered to be proof that light has a particle
nature as well as a wave nature. In contrast to this it is, ordinary particles and bodies in general are
considered to posses an exclusively particle nature.
Encouraged by the dual nature of light, de Broglie, in his doctoral thesis [L. de Broglie,
Dissertation, Paris, 1924.; L. de Broglie, Phil. Mag., 47, 446, 1924.] of 1923, put forward the bold
hypothesis that all particles have a wave nature as well. According to him, matter itself is dualistic
in nature, not just light.
De Broglie asserts that every particle of mass , moving at speed , is accompanied by a wave
of wavelength

(27.4)
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 170

Davisson and Germer allegedly confirmed the existence of de Broglie's wavelength

experimentally in 1927, and discovered the diffraction of electrons. [C.J. Davisson and L.H. Germer,
Nature 119, 558, 1927.]
According to de Broglie's hypothesis, particles do not possess a wave nature when at rest. In order
for the wave to accompany the particle, the particle must be set in motion. However, in order to set
a particle in motion some energy must be expended. In order to set an electron in motion an
acceleration voltage is used. In the electron microscope and X-ray devices, for example, the
acceleration voltage is the anode voltage.
The concept of the wave nature of the electron is employed in the electron microscope [23], [24].
The electron microscope is considered to be irrefutable proof that the electron has a wave nature. At
this point X-ray devices, that existed before the electron microscope, are forgotten.
In order to obtain de Broglie's wavelength of an electron we should find the momentum of the
electron, which is dependent on the velocity, that is, on the kinetic energy of the electron.
The equation for the kinetic energy of the electron, according to Eq. (23.38), in this case is given
by
(27.5)
From Eq. (27.5) we get that the mass of the electron accelerated by voltage is given by

(27.6)

where is the electrical charge of the electron.

The relationship between mass and is given by Lorentz's Eq. (23.4) for transversal mass

(27.7)

Using Eqs. (27.6) and (27.7) we find that the momentum of the electron is given by

(27.8)

So, de Broglie's wavelength is given by

(27.9)

In case of non-relativistic speeds of electrons, when , de Broglie's wavelength is

(27.10)

The wavelengths calculated according to Eq. (27.9) are a little different from the wavelengths
calculated according to Eq. (27.10). For example, if the accelerating voltage is 60000 V, then the
wavelength calculated by use of Eq. (27.9) is = 0.04866·10-10 m and calculated by use of Eq.
(27.10) is = 0.05101·10-10 m.
When we know de Broglie's wavelength we are able, using Planck's equation for the energy of the
wave , to calculate the energy contained in the wave of that wavelength, and then
to compare it with the energy expended to generate that wave. Such information can be used to
estimate the correctness of de Broglie's hypothesis. Of course, this is correct only if de Broglie's
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 171

wave has electromagnetic nature.

For example, the energy of de Broglie's wave of wavelength = 0.04866·10-10 m is

and the energy spent, in order to generate that wave is

Comparing these two results we find that the energy of the wave is 4.247 times greater that the
energy expended to generate it The alleged gain in energy, that is the gain coefficient, decreases
with increases in the anode voltage. For example, at an anode voltage of 100 V the gain coefficient
is 101.1. Such a result is surprising, and runs counter to the law on the conservation of energy. If de
Broglie were right, and if an electromagnetic wave were involved, this would mean that the long
awaited secret of perpetual motion had been uncovered. Unfortunately, this is impossible. De
Broglie's hypothesis is, in fact, the result of a tendency to find symmetry in nature even where it
does not exist.
We have seen above how the electron in motion generates an electromagnetic field, with which it
joins and from which it breaks away on the decrease of the velocity of motion. The relation between
the mass of an electron and the field generated appears between the mass of the electron and the
energy of the generated field as well. The faster the electron moves, the greater the energy of the
field generated and the greater the mass of the electron. As a result, the increase in mass of the
electron in motion, as we saw before, must be called electromagnetic mass.
The phenomenon of the generation of an electromagnetic field by the motion of an electron is as
well known as X-ray radiation. However, the wavelength of X-ray radiation is considerably larger
than de Broglie's wavelength at the same acceleration voltage and corresponds to the energy spent
in its generation. Therefore, some kind of dualism of electrified particles in motion really does exist,
even without de Broglie's wave. That kind of dualism, in distinction from de Broglie's, has sound
basis in proved fact. De Broglie starts from the symmetry in which it is understood that light has a
particle nature, and as a result it brings that assertion into doubt as well.
Neutral particles in motion do not generate an electromagnetic field. As a result they do not
behave as if they were waves, that is they are not accompanied by a wave as is an electron, or some
other electrified particle, in motion.

28. CONCLUSION
Few theories and authors have won such fame as the theory of relativity and its author Albert
Einstein. It is also difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity.
It is simply incredible that a theory with so many deceptions has held the attention of so many of
physicists and other scientists from the field of natural and technical sciences for so long, and has
managed to retain acceptability and even enter the textbooks for secondary schools and universities.
The acceptance of that theory at the time when it was developed can be somehow understood,
since that was a crucial time, when many questions in physics were asked, for which there were no
answers.
The results of Fizeau's test, and later Michelson's experiment, destroyed the old conception of the
existence of a cosmic quiescent ether, which also meant the destruction of the foundations on which
some great theories of the time had been built. Lorentz also found himself in an unenviable situation,
since his Electron theory was based on the existence of an ether.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 172

To overcome the arisen difficulties, Lorentz gave a hypothesis on the shortening of a body
moving through the ether, which is proportional to the coefficient . In accordance with
that hypothesis, Lorentz derived the transformation of coordinates, which was later named after him.
With this transformation, time and space were made relative and that laid the foundation for the
theory of relativity.
On that foundation Einstein built his special theory of relativity. However, unlike Lorentz, he
introduced a new understanding of time and space. According to him, the change in length and time
are real physical processes, which occur exclusively as a consequence of motion itself, and not as a
consequence of the effect of some ether, which does not exist at all.
Thus Einstein denied the existence of the ether and allegedly gave answers to some questions,
which arose after Fizeau's and Michelson's experiment. Unfortunately, his theory did not give the
right answers. It can even be said they were deceptions, as the special theory of relativity can be
said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions, which this book has uncovered. It is a failed attempt to
build a universal theory on the basis of the known experimental results, which would be, first of all,
in accordance with these results.
The so-called results of the special theory of relativity, that are in fact correct but are reached by
incorrect relativistic derivation of equations, where known before the appearance of the special
theory of relativity. They are to be found in the work of Lorentz (the longitudinal mass and the
transversal mass), Poincare ( ), Maxwell ( ), Heaviside and others.
Einstein's exposition in that theory is ingeniously thought out to deceive and it largely resembles
magician's tricks. Thus, for example, when he explains things which are known and clear even to a
secondary school student, he is methodical, very clear to the last detail and exhaustive. However,
when we look at the text containing a deception, he is complex, confused, incomplete and brief or,
alternatively, long-widened. Despite that long-wideness he does not clarify what is unclear, but
complicates it further, so that the text becomes even less clear. On the credit of what is clear in
Einstein's exposition, the reader accepts the unclear as well, believing it to be true, and thinking it is
his fault that he does not understand Einstein, or that it would take a lot more effort to understand
him.
Einstein started his deception right from §1 of his paper on relativity [2], on determining
simultaneity, on the basis of the judgement on the synchronized "ticking" of clock in motion. That
is the first and the key deception in the special theory of relativity, on the basis of which further
deceptions were constructed. Unfortunately, that deception was not spotted, and it even became the
subject of serious philosophic discussions.
The first inconsistency appears in §2 of the same paper, where he uses speed , although he
claims with his fundamental postulate that in nature there is no higher speed than the speed of light
in vacuum. Inconsistency is an important characteristic of the theory of relativity, although Einstein
claims that the theory of relativity is a theory of principles, that is a theory of consistency.
In §3 he derives transformation of coordinates in a very complex, confused and unclear way,
where he also uses expressions and . A complicated way of deriving equations offers
great opportunities for deceiving the reader. Thus, with the help of clocks and simultaneity control
of their "ticking" in two coordinate systems, which move relatively, a light ray and mathematical
operations Einstein derived transformation of coordinates and "proved" not only that the existence
of time dilatation and space contraction in mathematical sense, but also that they are real physical
processes.
However, I derived in a simple way a number of transformations of coordinates on the basis of
satisfying the requirement for invariability of equations for the propagation of spherical and plane
light wave. By using the Lorentz and these transformations, I proved that Einstein's time dilatation
and space contractions are just a mathematical game, which has no connection with some real
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 173

physical process. In connection with that I have demonstrated that the so-called coefficient of the

contraction is not but .

In §5 of the said first paper, the theorem on addition of speeds is derived in an equally complex
and unclear way. If it had been derived in a simple and comprehensible way, as has been done in
this book, it would have been clear that it was not a case of addition or subtraction of any speeds,
but that the formulas of the theorem represent the speed of light wave in a coordinate system at rest,
in case of addition of speeds, or in a moving coordinate system, in case of subtraction of speeds.
Since the transformation of coordinates was derived with the condition that the speed of
propagation of spherical light wave in both systems equals the speed of light, then the alleged sum
and difference of speeds must be equal to the speed of light.
In deriving equations Einstein uses expressions and and he never changes them with
, although in his theorem on addition of speeds he says that the sum or the difference of light
velocity and some other speed are equal to the velocity of light. Thus, Einstein refutes his own
theorem.
With the help of this theorem he explains the result of Fizeau's experiment, claiming insistently
that the result of the experiment confirms the validity of the theory of relativity and that there is no
other theory which can explain it. By such a resolute claim, he hides the fact that the formulas of his
theorem are derived for the case of vacuum, and that Fizeau's experiment is performed in water. As
an outstanding physicist he must have known that, but nevertheless, he uses the formulas, valid for
vacuum, for the case of water, in order to prove the correctness of his theory, which says a lot about
Einstein's correctness, and the correctness of his theory.
I derived the equations of the theorem on addition of speeds in moving water in the same way as it
was derived for the case of vacuum. By use of those equations I showed that the result of Fizeau's
test does not prove the correctness of the theory of relativity, but, on the contrary, refutes it. At the
same time the result of the Fizeau's test is explained by use of the new derived equations for the
speed of light in moving water.
In deriving the formulas for the angle of aberration and the Doppler effect, he applies the
transformation of coordinates for a spherical light wave on a plane light wave, which is incorrect.
The formula for the Doppler effect for the case of moving radiation source, which Einstein gives, is
not, and can not be, derived in the relativistic procedure, which also shows the failure of the theory
of relativity. Also, according to this equation, the frequency of the radiation increases as the
radiation source retreats, which runs counter to observed reality.
According to the theory of relativity, apart from the longitudinal Doppler effect, there is also the
transversal one, which has no bearing on reality. By using new transformations I showed that the
relativistic way of determining the Doppler effect represents an interesting mathematical game
which can not be logically connected with reality.
The classical and relativistic explanation of the cause of aberration is disputed and a new
explanation is given, which is based upon relative motion of the earth's ether and sun's ether.
An especially important part of the special theory of relativity is the one which refers to a body's
mass and energy and their mutual relation. It is generally believed that the theory of relativity
proved itself most convincingly in this sphere. However, nobody has spotted that the failure and
weakness of this theory was proved most obviously in this sphere, which is shown in this book.
Einstein tried to derive the formula for the mass of a moving electron, as well as the formula
which determines the relation of mass and energy in his first paper. So, in §10 of that paper, under
the title "Dynamics of a (weakly accelerated) electron", Einstein derives in a wrong way, both from
mathematical and physical standpoint, wrong formula for transversal mass of an electron and
correct formula for longitudinal mass.
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 174

Deriving the equations for the longitudinal and transversal mass of an electron in motion, which
are dependent on velocity, Einstein assumes that an electron in motion has only one mass and
treats it as a constant magnitude.

Applying the Lorentz transformation of coordinates to the expressions of the accelerations ,

and he arrives at equations for the longitudinal and transversal acceleration which he
thereafter refers to as equations for longitudinal and transversal mass. In this incorrect mathematical
game the concept of acceleration is substituted for the concept of mass which have nothing in
common from the viewpoint of physical science.
The wrong equation for the transversal mass, an incorrect derivation of the equations, the use of
very low, non-relativistic velocities in comparison with the speed of light, and the assumption that
mass and acceleration are the same thing, all go to show that the equations for the longitudinal and
transversal mass of an electron in motion cannot be derived according to correct relativistic
procedure.
The theory of relativity treats the change of the mass of an electron in motion exclusively as a
result of relative motion, but not as the result of the physical process caused by motion of an
electrically charged particle. In this way the theory ignores the very idea of electromagnetic mass,
which is not accepted at all.
The equation for the kinetic energy of an electron and the equation for the transformation of
energy into electromagnetic mass and electromagnetic mass into energy cannot be derived by
correct relativistic procedure because the equations for the longitudinal and transversal mass cannot
be derived by that procedure either. As a result these equations cannot be considered relativistic, nor
they should be connected with the theory of relativity.
By the way, the equations for the longitudinal and transversal mass of an electron in motion,
which are ascribed to Einstein, were in fact derived by Lorentz before the appearance of Einstein's
theory of relativity, but on the supposition that the spherical shape of an electron deformed on
motion through the ether.
The formula for the total transformation of mass into energy, , was not nor can it be
derived by correct relativistic procedure and should not, therefore, be treated as a relativistic
equation or connected with the theory of relativity.
For a long time it was thought that Einstein derived a complete theorem on the inertia of energy in
the article, "Does the inertia of a body depend on the energy contained in it?" However, in 1953,
Ives proved that the theorem was incorrectly derived.
In another article, entitled "The elementary derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy",
published in 1946, Einstein derived using incorrect derivation and thus concluded that
. It is therefore without foundation to assert that Einstein derived the equation
by correct relativistic procedure. In fact it cannot be derived correctly by that procedure. Poincare
was the first who derived in implicit form the formula .
In chapter 23.8 of this book I have derived this equation completely, according to
classical procedure. Using that result I also derived completely the equation
according to correct and purely classical procedure as shown in chapter 23.9 of this book. In this
way I have proved that these two most important equations in the theory of relativity do not belong
there and are classical equations.
The annihilation of the electron and positron is considered to be the most convincing example of
the total transformation of mass into energy. In that process the entire mass of the electron, as
matter and the entire mass of the positron as antimatter are allegedly transformed into energy in the
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 175

form of two gamma rays. At the same time, the appearance of electron-positron pairs when matter is
irradiated with gamma rays of energy greater than 1.022 MeV is considered to be a convincing
example of the transformation of energy into mass.
In chapter 26, however, it is demonstrated that when electrons and positrons collide they are not
annihilated and their mass is not transformed into gamma radiation. A moving electron, as a moving
positron, possess kinetic energy. When these particles collide this energy is converted into energy in
the form of two gamma rays. From this we must conclude that the positron is not antimatter and that
antimatter does not exist. The electron and positron do not disappear on collision, but form a neutral
particle. On the irradiation of matter with high energy gamma rays, the bond between the electron
and positron is broken and the electron positron pairs appear. Electrons and positrons form the basis
of matter, accordingly we should not generalise and assert that .
Incidentally, Heaviside derived the equation for the mutual relation of energy and mass of an

electron at rest correctly, as . The equation is related to the mutual relation of

the energy of electromagnetic radiation and the electromagnetic mass ascribed to that energy.
It is considered that Einstein's findings about the dimensions of the universe, its age and the
quantity of matter contained within it are incorrect. In connection to this a new hypothesis is
presented to explain the red shift in the spectra of radiation from distant galaxies. This hypothesis
counteracts the theory that the universe was born in a big bang and that it is expanding. On the basis
of this hypothesis the phenomenon of cosmic rays of enormous energies is explained, as well as the
origin of primary cosmic rays.
De Broglie's hypothesis about the wave nature of particles only makes sense for electrically
charged particles. The wavelength of the wave accompanying the moving charged particle is in
reverse proportion to the energy expended in causing the particle to move, and is subject to Plank's
law . De Broglie's wavelength, which accompanies the electron in motion, is not
however in accordance with this law. The energy of de Broglie's wave is greater than the energy
expended to generate that wave. This fact, in some way, denies the existence of de Broglie's wave.
Finally we must pose the question of the acceptability of the general theory of relativity. The short
answer is as follows: The general theory of relativity can be judged on the basis of this book and on
Einstein's own statement, "the general theory of relativity is based on the special theory of
relativity" [A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 228-229, 1954. (Article "What is the theory of
relativity?", published in "Times" from 12.11.1919.)].
 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 176

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Albert Einstein: The Meaning of Relativity, London, 1967.

2. Albert Einstein: Zur Elektrodynamik der bewegter Körper, Ann. Phys. 1905, 17, 891. (russian
translation: K elektrodinamike dvi ušæihsja tel, Sobranie nauènih trudov, tom I, str. 7-35, Moskva
1966.)

3. Albert Einstein: Ist die Trägheil eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängin? Ann. Phys.
1905, 18, 639-641 (russian translation: Zavisit li inercija tela ot soder ašæejsja v nem energii, Sobr.
nauè. trudov, tom I, str. 36-38, Moskva 1966.)

4. Albert Einstein: Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy. Techn. J. (Haifa),
1946. V, 16-17 (russian translation: Elementarnyj vyvod ekvivalentnosti massy i energii, Sobr. nauè.
trudov, tom II, str. 650-652, Moskva 1967.), and also in the transactions Conceptions Scientifiques,
morales et sociales, Paris 1952. (in french).

5. Albert Einstein: Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselen gezogenen Folgerungen. Jahrb.
d. Radioaktivität u. Elektronik 1907, 4, 411-462 (russian translation: O principe otnositeljnosti i ego
sledstvijah, Sobr. nauè. trud., tom I, str. 65-86).

6. Albert Einstein: O Specijalnoj i Opštoj teoriji relativnosti, Beograd 1935. (The Special and
General Theory of Relativity)

7. Albert Einstein: Über spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, Berlin, 1969.

8. Albert Einstein: Fizika i realnost, Moskva, 1965. (Physics and reality)

9. Albert Einstein: Moja slika sveta, Beograd, 1962. (The world as I see it)

10. Dragiša Ivanoviæ: O Teoriji relativnosti, Beograd, 1962. (About the theory of relativity)

11. Maks Born: Ejnštejnovskaja teorija otnostitel'nosti, Moskva, 1972.

12. I S. Sacunkeviè: Sovremennoe eksperimental'noe potver denije specialnoj teorii otnositel'nosti,

Minsk, 1979.

13. Z. Šmucer: Teorija otnositel'nosti sovremennoe predstavl'enie put' ka edinstvu fiziki, Moskva,
1981.

14. D. I. Penner, V. A. Ugarov: Elektrodinamika i special'naja teorija otnositel'nosti, Moskva, 1980.

15. Ja. P. Terleckij: Paradoksi teorii otnositel'nosti, Moskva, 1966.

16. R. A. Sjunjaev: Fizika kosmosa - Malenkaja enciklopedija, Moskva, 1986.

17. R. A. Millikan: The Electrons, Chicago, 1963.

18. R. A. Millikan: Elektroni II, Beograd, 1949.

 Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity – Scientific Theory Or Illusion? 177

19. Review of Particle Properties, Phys. Rev. D.1, Avg. 1994.

20. Max Jammer, Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics, Harvard Univ., Press Cambr.
- Massach., 1961. (russian translation, Moskva 1961.)

21. C. W. Allen: Astrophysical Quantities, Third edition, London, 1973.

22. L. de Broglie: L'électron magnétique (Théorie de Dirac), Paris, 1934.

23. G. Schimmel: Elektronenmikroskopische methodik, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1969.

24. R. D. Heidenreich: Fundamentals of Transmission Electron Microscopy