The Special Formulas of Relativity and
The Lorentz Factor

A Spacetime/Motion Analysis
of Relativistic Mass, Time, Length, and Energy

formula for length contraction in the theory of special relativity

The formula for length contraction in the theory of special relativity expressed in this manner is simply an error on the part of some physicists

formula special realtivity error mathematical

This error in computation along with other errors is examined in this study. How many generations of physicists have committed, and still commit, this mathematical error within the theory of special relativity ---too many to cite.  The author illustrates that it does not matter for the mistaken numbers are incommensurable anyway. The mistakes occur in theory and not in practicable matters. In theory, then, it is possible to make all the mistakes one may wish for they did not affect reality.
The physicists simply employ the Lorentz Factor multiplied times an object at rest in order to produce a numerical value for that object in motion (all that within their terminology).
Even if the physicists did not make the mistakes listed in this study, the theory of special relativity would still be incorrect. There are numerous reasons for the deficiencies in the theory of special relativity. Some are treated in this brief study. In other words, correcting the cited errors will not correct the theory.
It is impossible for the physicists to back track and clean up their mistakes now. Furthermore, too many scientists continue to commit these errors to cite them here.
I chose the title for this study, The Special Theory of relativity, on purpose to emphasize its nature. Now, let's see what is so special about this theory.  



"Some academic scientists, especially experimental physicists such as the Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, as well as Ernst Gehrcke, Stjepan Mohorovičić, Rudolf Tomaschek and others criticized the increasing mathematization of modern physics, especially in the form of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. It was seen as a tendency to abstract theory building, connected with the loss of 'common sense'. In fact, relativity was the first theory, in which the inadequacy of the 'illustrative' classical physics was clearly demonstrated."
[Emphasis mine.]

            In researching the formulas about special relativity, there was a point when suddenly I felt that this task was a waste of time. I began to think about the rumor that Albert Einstein proposed his theories in jest, as a joke, and then people began telling him to be serious because others were taking his ideas seriously.
At times the formulas for special relativity, remind me of the humor of the author of "Parkinson's Law".
"It should be enough to state that prolonged research at the Institute of Comitology has given rise to a formula which is now widely (although not universally) accepted by the experts in this field."

formulas for special relativity

"When m = the average number of members actually present; o = the number of members influenced by outside pressure groups; a = the average age of the members; d = the distance in centimeters between the two members who are seated farthest from each other; … The x = the number of members effectively present at the moment when the efficient working of the cabinet or other committee has become manifestly impossible." [C. Northcote Parkinson, Parkinson's Law and Other Studies in Administration, Houghton Mifflin, 1957, page 43.]
            It is difficult to know when the theory of special relativity about the observer's capacity to view matter-energy events got translated into a description and explanation of how matter-energy behaves in spacetime/motion.
            This is the first point that should be noticed. The theory of special relativity is for the observer, people whose sight is unimpaired. It is a theory that speaks to the observer of the events and objects treated in its analysis. And, it speaks to the observer who has the purpose of measuring the events and objects treated in the analysis.
One thing is to talk about how we perceive reality, quite another to use our perceptions to explain how matter-energy exists.
Today, the result is that the speed of light defines the metre as "the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second". This relates that the speed of light is by convention 299 792 458 m/s (approximately 1.079 billion kilometres per hour or, 671 million miles per hour). ["Relativity of Simultaneity",]

671 - The Magic Number: A velocity of 671 f.p.s. for any projectile gives the same energy number in foot pounds as the weight of the projectile in grains. An 8-grain pellet traveling

671 f.p.s. generates 8 foot-pounds. A 20-grain projectile going 671 f.p.s. generates 20 foot-pounds and a million-grain (142.6) projectile going 671 f.p.s. generates a million foot-pounds.


            Now, consider a street scene of a city landscape in a drawing. The lines in that drawing reflect the visual perspective of what we observe. One would not dare measure those lines and then propose those measurements to be the actual measurements of the elements on the street.
            For example, the lines in a perspective drawing appear to meet at a central point in the landscape. They appear to meet like that in reality. The apparent perspective lines meet at that abstracted central point. Riding down the street in an automobile, the visual lines of perspective keep moving, radiating away from the central point. We never reach the central point where the lines appear to meet.
            The theory of relativity creates formulas about our visual perception of spacetime/motion events when objects approach the speed of light. They are deficient. They do not take into consideration various key aspects:
- the individual perspective of reality,
- the distance of the observer to reality;
- the fact that one is offering a theory of visual observation/perception (from which blind people are excluded);
- the effects of gravity on the observer and on the object being viewed;
- and, various deficiencies in the mathematical formulas used to supposedly describe and measure the visuals purportedly seen by the observers.

            The theory of relativity has been around for over one hundred years now. It is necessary to identify its place within the production of human knowledge. The theory of relativity [general and special] concerns the theory of human observation.
            Now, with over one hundred years of scientists writing and talking about relativity, it is possible to make a re-evaluation of the theory of observation about matter-energy in spacetime/motion from the very perspective of spacetime/motion itself.
            The purpose of this study is to make a spacetime/motion analysis of the formulas for special relativity in order to understand their significance.
            The object of study of relativity [special and general] is not matter-energy as forms of spacertime/motion, but rather the observer who observes matter-energy events and the distortions deriving from the observation itself.
            The formulas of special relativity state that the observer sees an increase in mass of objects that travel near the speed of light. The observer sees time dilation, length contraction and increase in energy of objects that travel near the speed of light.
            The formulas do not mean that objects that travel near the speed of light increase in mass, suffer time dilation changes, contract along their length of linear travel, or increase their energy. With examples of different clocks in vacuum and not in vacuum, they appear to state that time itself is different.
            Somehow, over the one hundred year period, many scientists have gone from stating what the observer sees to replacing those statements with how the object exists that is being observed naturally.
            I see the lines of perspective on a drawing converge to the center, but in reality those lines do not converge, and there is no center point in reality formed by the convergence of those lines from which these appear to radiate.
            The theory of observation within artwork for landscape paintings exists and is quite exhaustive and well known. How perspective works in drawing landscapes has been thoroughly studied for hundreds of years.
            The theory of observation regarding what human beings see when they view an object traveling near the speed of light has been studied for little over one hundred years. Scientists seek to be exact in their studies. To be exact: human beings are unable to "see" objects that travel near the speed of light. I challenge anyone to "see" the 1% contracted length of an object travelling near the speed of light that the relativists talk about.
            Neither the 99% length contraction nor the 1% contracted length of an object can be seen by human beings. Such a statement is neither commensurable nor probable; theoretically or practically.
            The perspective drawing offers an effective example of relativistic effects on a daily basis in human sight. The theoretical task is similar to affirming the percentage of reality that disappears at the center point of what we see in a landscape drawing or even in reality as we drive down the street. The perceived center point of a landscape drawing shows two street lamp posts in the distance as being nearly next to one another. We know that the street separates them in reality. But, we could measure the distance between the two lamp posts and then measure the width of our peripheral view in the entire landscape and come up with a percentage of how much spacetime/distance between the two lamp posts is missing from our view of the landscape.
            For example, I could measure the locomotive seen a mile away, being about one inch in length as I see it. I could then compute the distance from where I stand to the size of the image that I see. Then I could figure out what is the real size/length of the locomotive.
            In speaking about a supposed contraction in length the observer's view of the object supposedly seen as contracted, the distance between the observer and the object must necessarily be taken into consideration. In the formulas for special relativity this does not occur.
It is one thing for an object to fly past an observer one hundred million miles away, and quite another for it to whiz pass the observer's nose. The observer may have a chance of "seeing" the object flying at nearly light speed millions of miles away and possibly describe the contraction/reduction of the object seen. Maybe, but I doubt it. But if that same object travelling near light speed flies by the observer 3 feet in front of the observer, well, I doubt the observer would even know something passed him/her by as long as the object did not hit him/her and as long as all that occurred in a vacuum with no wind hitting observer.

Fastest wind registered on Earth: 511 km/hr = 318 mph.

            I would imagine that to be hit by the wake of the wind from an object flying past an observer at 299,792,458 meters per second would probably annihilate the observer and deny any possibility of proving any of the relativistic formulas. There would be no observer to say what he/she saw.  But, then if the human observer is in a vacuum he/she would require an oxygen supply, etc., etc. Have fun with the theory of human observation.
            I say human observation because animals observe, as well as birds, insects, fishes, etc. Observations made by dogs are often easy enough for us humans to understand. Some people may say that it is more difficult to understand the communication skills of cats. Now, cockroaches in Louisiana are something else. Turn the light on suddenly in a dark room and spot a roach. The roach freezes, analyzes the situation, observes the human in the room, and then runs to hide generally away from the human observer.
            Hey, there are all kinds of theories of observation. Humans observing objects flying near the speed of light is one that is pretty much invented, made up, since no one has any first hand knowledge yet. And, please, I am not talking about electronically observing the speed of light or other forms of particle radiation.  I am talking about space ships and trains possibly travelling at the speed of light as occurs in the science literature.

Fastest train on Earth: 581 km/hr = 367 mph

            How long before you think we are able to get a train to hit light speed? One thing, I do not want to be anywhere near that train at that speed, either in a vacuum or not in a vacuum… talk about a destructive piece of asteroidal hardware!

All problems in the optics of moving bodies can be solved by the method here employed. What is essential is, that the electric and magnetic force of the light which is influenced by a moving body, be transformed into a system of co-ordinates at rest relatively to the body. By this means all problems in the optics of moving bodies will be reduced to a series of problems in the optics of stationary bodies. -[Albert Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", §8, June 30, 1905; emphasis mine].

"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case."
-[Albert Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", June 30, 1905;
emphasis mine].

Consequences thereof
magnet is in motion
conductor at rest

electrical field/energy
producing current for parts of conductor

magnet is stationary
conductor in motion
no elecrical field
electromotive force/no-energy; electric currents/intensity as a)

            The previous examples are explained in spacetime/motion events and need not be reduced to relativity considerations. Each example has its own conditions of existence and corresponding explanation. One may ponder the missing cases:

magnet in motion
conductor in motion

magnet at rest
conductor at rest

The theoretical spacetime/motion conception considers all possible relationships of matter-energy events at rest/in motion in relation to themselves and to other such events.
            Ultimately, Einstein offers this conclusion regarding the magnet/conductor example:

Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the “seat” of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point. -[Albert Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", June 30, 1905; emphasis mine].

         The question that arises in my mind is why would one want the distinction of these two spacetime/motion events to disappear? Each one requires explanation on its own terms of existence, and part of those terms refer to the relational motion of each one to one another.
         It is possible to play chess by moving the board instead of the pieces, but one must know when with relational option is being carried out. It is ludicrous to think that one would want to apprehend a chess game imagining the board moving as against the pieces moving, or conceptualizing for some reason both or either option.

If an electrically charged body is in motion anywhere in space without altering its charge when regarded from a system of co-ordinates moving with the body, its charge also remains—when regarded from the “stationary” system K—constant. -[Albert Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", § 9, June 30, 1905; emphasis mine].

            Eliminate the observer from the previous statement and a tautology appears [emphasis mine]:

"If an electrically charged body is in motion anywhere in space without altering its charge when regarded from a system of co-ordinates moving with the body, its charge also remains—when regarded from the “stationary” system K—constant."

©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.