Theory of relativity: A critique

发表时间：2026-03-11 10:59

Loretz transformation is logically inconsistent. Theory of relativity, which is built on Lorentz transformation, is therefore logically inconsistent. This logical inconsistency creates many paradoxes, such as the twin paradox. Many people who studied the theory quickly spot the problem. If so, why the theory of relativity remains the foundation of modern physics for over a century?

Authorities claim that the paradoxes in theory of relativity have been resolved and hence no real logical inconsistency exists. But when pressed, authorities would state,

This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. [Lasky, R.C., 2003]

Relativity is not an obscure theory. It is the very foundation of modern physics. Relativity is not a new theory. It has been around for more than a century. If no one could produce a non-misleading explanation after such a long time, how can one assert “the result is correct”?

Another defense is that relativity theory has been confirmed by thousands of experiments. But the explanations based on relativity often require additional auxiliary hypothesis. The most popular example is GPS (Global Positioning System). It is claimed that without relativity theory, GPS will not work. In GPS, there are several adjustments based on relativity theory. In one part, relativity theory provides a second order adjustments, of several centimeters. At the same time, there is a need for Doppler adjustment, a first order adjustment of hundreds of meters. But without relativity, one needs neither first order adjustment, nor second order adjustment. A detailed discussion on GPS is presented elsewhere (Chen, 2024).

Relativity theory requires numerous auxiliary hypotheses. In cosmology, which is based on relativity theory, researchers have proposed many auxiliary hypotheses, such as dark energy and dark matter, which are not observable. With auxiliary hypotheses, experiments can “confirm” any theory.

Relativity theory is not consistent with logic. Neither is it confirmed by experiments. Why does it dominate modern science for such a long time? The treatment of Paul Gerber’s work might provide some insight about it.

The precession of perihelion of Mercury was first explained in general relativity, we are told. Yet in 1898, Paul Gerber published a paper titled The Spatial and temporal Propagation of Gravity, (Gerber, 1898). His basic idea is that the speed of gravitational propagation is finite. This finiteness of speed generates the precession of perihelion of Mercury. From the size of the precession, he calculated the speed of gravitational propagation. It is equal to the speed of light. The core of that paper is the derivation of a formula that connects the speed of propagation of gravity to the amount of precession. More than a decade later, Einstein published the same formula. If so, why has almost no one heard of Paul Gerber?

Einstein made the following statement about Gerber’s work.

The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber’s work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury. I did not mention the work by Gerber initially, because I did not know about it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury; even if I had been aware of it, I would not have had any reason to mention it. (Einstein, 1920)

This is a blatant lie. The very fact that some experts have brought up Gerber’s work shows that not every expert agrees “Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through”. True, these experts have since been discredited in the mainstream media. They were supposed to possess “ulterior motive”. But at the time of Einstein’s statement, there was no agreement among experts that “Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through”.

We can go over Gerber’s paper ourselves. In that paper, “the main assumption made by Gerber” is the finiteness of the speed of propagation of gravity. Einstein made the same assumption in general relativity later. Gerber’s derived formula is correct, which is the same formula Einstein used later. When Einstein claimed, “Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through”, it was not a technical assessment. Rather, it was a political statement. It was an intimidation. Anyone who pointed out the obvious fact in this matter was an affront to him.

Roseveare’s book, Mercury's perihelion, from Leverrier to Einstein, provided a very extensive review on the issue of Mercury’s perihelion. Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism had become very influential over time. As a result, many people thought that the transmission speed of gravitational force might be finite. Gerber, and Einstein later, adopted the same idea. Roseveare observed,

Since Einstein's supporters did not concern themselves with Gerber's work it is not surprising that this result is not found in the literature --- Gerber partisans would not proclaim their inferiority --- but one might have expected some notice of it … Nevertheless Gerber's law faded from view rather than being publicly refuted. (Roseveare, 1982, P 144)

This is really a subtle way to say Gerber is not wrong, giving the prevailing academic atmosphere. Einstein was a superstar in 1920; Gerber was a high school teacher. When the most famous man in the world says Gerber’s derivation is "wrong through and through," most people get the message, and most journals stop publishing defenses of it. It is intimidation, not reasoning, that drives Gerber’s work into oblivion.

There was a parallel case to Gerber’s work in quantum theory. It was called Sommerfeld Puzzle (Biedenharn, 1983). How could Sommerfeld derive the correct fine structure energy levels of hydrogen atom based on the old quantum theory, which was supposed to be fundamentally flawed. He must have made several mistakes. The effects of these mistakes miraculously cancel each other to reach the correct answer. But later researchers argue that beneath the differences of the Sommerfeld’s work and Dirac’s work, which represents the standard theory, there lies a more fundamental unity (Biedenharn, 1983).

According to Einstein’s logic, Sommerfeld’s work, and Bohr’s work before him, would be “wrong through and through”. But fortunately, Sommerfeld’s work and Bohr’s work followed Einstein’s work. They further enhance Einstein’s reputation. Gerber’s work, on the other hand, preceded Einstein’s work. Gerber’s work, and works of other pioneers, would make Einstein less God like. Hence, Einstein and his promoters made every effort to destroy the credibility of Gerber and other pioneers.

By the mid-1920s Einstein’s opponents were facing overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public stance against the theory of relativity. (Wazeck, 2010)

People were not convinced. They were coerced into silence.

Monopoly confers great power, prestige, and wealth for monopoly holders. Naturally, achieving monopoly is not only the main goal in religious, political, and economic activities, but also in scientific activities. But the unrelentless pursuit of monopoly power without regarding basic facts incurs serious consequences to the society.

First, the desire to do great research is greatly diminished. Great research is often pioneering research, ignored by the mainstream. Walras, one of the founders of neoclassical economics, once wrote, “If one wants to harvest quickly, one must plant carrots and salads; if one has the ambition to plant oaks, one must have the sense to tell oneself: my grandchildren will owe me this shade.”(Schumpeter, 2006, P 796) But when the recognition of earlier work is suppressed, few are willing to engage in great pioneering works.

Researchers often lament that it is difficult to do great research in today’s environment. At the same time, they historical facts about great research are aggressively suppressed to maintain the image and prestige of the scientific community. Gerber’s work was finished more than one hundred years ago. Yet today, there is no sign that his great achievement will be acknowledged any time soon. Soldner calculated the condition of black hole more than two hundred years ago (Soldner, 1804). Yet today, the concept of black hole is attributed to Einstein, and the calculated result is called Schwarzschild radius instead of Soldner radius.

Second, science has become a profession and a guild, instead of a passion. The scientific community has become extremely authoritarian. It is only safe to follow the steps of the prominent figures.

self-proclaimed scientists keep trying to foist their astonishingly simple solutions to much-discussed problems upon genuine academics. Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. (Wazeck, 2010)

In the 1920s, some “physics professors and even Nobel laureates” voiced dissident opinions. They were totally discredited by the mainstream institutions subsequently. Today, only the opinions of “genuine academics” matter. The ideas of the “self-proclaimed scientists” are completely excluded. Today’s physics community is so dull. Great ideas only flourish in areas where outsiders still have a place, such as in the IT industry.

Third, it promotes intimidation and coercion. Those who can intimidate and coerce others are the ones politically more powerful. As intimidation and coercion becomes more often, researchers naturally align with the politically more powerful. Scientific research degenerates into political service. The research on carbon dioxide is such an example. Carbon dioxide, at 0.04% in the atmosphere, is a very precious resource for the plants and the whole ecosystem. But to justify carbon tax and other taxes, to justify heavy subsidy and wealth transfer to the politically well connected, many researchers produce paper after paper on the supposed harm of carbon dioxide, paying little attention to reality (Pearce, 2024)

Fourth, politicians and their handlers, not researchers, become the arbiters of research. For example, climate science is a relatively new research area. Many problems in this area are under active research. But politicians repeatedly claim that the science of climate change has settled.

Fifth, scientific research, at least on important topics, is no more measured by facts, but by the motive of the researchers. If someone possesses “ulterior motive”, any facts presented by him is voided. If someone possesses “noble motive”, he can lie at will. This greatly encourages dishonesty in science research and whole society.

References

Biedenharn, L.C. (1983). The “Sommerfeld Puzzle” revisited and resolved. Found Phys 13, 13–34

Chen, Jing, 2024, Lorentz Transformation: A Physical Reality?, working paper, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386088105_Lorentz_Transformation_A_Physical_Reality

Einstein, A. (1920). "Meine Antwort - ?ber die anti-relativit?tstheoretische G.m b.H". Berliner Tageblatt. 402.

Gerber, P. (1898). "Die r?umliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der Gravitation" . Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik. 43: 93–104

Lasky, R.C., 2003. How does relativity theory resolve the twin paradox. Scientific American. March 17, 2003

Pearce, Fred, 2024, Desertification was supposed to be the ‘greatest environmental challenge of our time.’ Why are experts now worried about greening? August 12, https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/desertification-was-supposed-to-be-the-greatest-environmental-challenge-of-our-time-why-are-experts-now-worried-about-greening/

Roseveare, N. T (1982). Mercury's perihelion, from Leverrier to Einstein. Oxford: University Press.

Schumpeter, J.A., 2006. History of economic analysis. Routledge.

Soldner, J. G. v. (1804). "On the deflection of a light ray from its rectilinear motion, by the attraction of a celestial body at which it nearly passes by". Berliner Astronomisches Jahrbuch: 161–172.

Wazeck, Milena, 2010, The relativity deniers, New Scientist, Vol 208, Issue 2786, 11/13/2010