Theory of relativity: A critique

Theory of relativity: A critique

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. The derivation of the formula is indeed quite long and complex. More detailed explanation would also help. But the logic in Gerber’s derivation is very clear. And he derived the correct formula. His main assumption is correct, which is the same assumption Einstein used later. His derived formula is correct, which is the same formula Einstein used later. What does it mean “Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through”?

Nevertheless, with Einstein’s authority, Gerber’s work “faded from view”.

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)

Overall,

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. The monopolistic activities have serious consequences for science and whole society.

First, it encourages dishonesty in science research and whole society. As long as earlier research can be ignored, any result can be called new discoveries. As long as alternative theories can be suppressed, any theory can be called truth.

Second, 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. 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)

Third, it suppresses the desire to do great research. 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 aggressively suppress the historical truth about great research and the current great research to maintain the prestige of their own research work.

Fourth, research becomes public relation shows. Physicists often announce to the public that they are developing the theory of everything, while suppressing dissident voices. This is how they attract funding and justify lavish spending.

Fifth, 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 state that the science of climate change has settled. If the science of climate change is truly settled, why climate research is given so much funding?

References

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.

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