Part II

The Special Theory of Relativity
or
Einstein's Theory of Relative Observation & Measurement

Introduction

Essentially, the theory of special relativity as proposed by Albert Einstein represents one aspect of the theory of human observation and measurement of those observations.
            Einstein was very clear in his writing of the 1905 paper on special relativity. He repeatedly emphasized that no change occurred in the "phenomena" and that his remarks concerned the perspective, observations and measurement of the phenomena by observers. It would appear, however, that relativists possibly misunderstood the purpose of his analytical work. They have attempted to materially prove that the consequences of "observation and measurement" actually occur within the "phenomena" (matter-energy events) themselves.
            Einstein stated that the phenomena observed would appear to contract along their length. Scientists supposedly have now proven that the matter-energy phenomena actually contract along their length.
The purported proofs of the theory of special relativity cited are numerous: muons, the splitting of the atom, length contraction, etc.
            There are two levels then that are necessary in the critique of the special theory of relativity.
One must first recognize that it is humanly impossible to actually observe (or measure practically) the supposed theoretical length contraction of mass phenomena traveling near the speed of light ---other than electromagnetic particle-waves themselves.
And, secondly, the phenomena that travel near the speed of light do not contract lengthwise as Einstein himself reasoned. We can argue the first counterpoint. It is for relativists to understand what Einstein himself proposed regarding the second point in his original work, as they obviously misread him. Here is Einstein's text:
"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:

  1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
  2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

[Albert Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", I. Kinematical Part, §2, June 30, 1905].

            I began this study by examining the terms and mathematical procedures stipulated in the formulas of special relativity: mass, time, length and, energy [presented in Part III of this study]. At one point during the analysis, I had the feeling that their analysis was a waste of time. When one reads between the lines, the relativists are stating that these formulas refer only to human observation and measurement. They are concerned with how matter-energy events appear to a human observer when said events approach the speed of light. The relativist emphasizes repeatedly that the matter-energy events observed do not suffer any modification in their spacetime/motion composition.
            After nearly completing my critical review of the literature, a simple fact dawned on me. It is impossible for a human observer to actually observe, see a material body (as they call it) moving near the speed of light. In that regard, it is humanly impossible to prove or disprove the supposed relativist theses about phenomena increasing in mass, time dilation, or energy and, on the other hand, decreasing in length.
            For that main reason, the relativist formulas examined in this study appear to me to be baseless. For that reason alone, the impossibility to prove/disprove them makes it unnecessary to actually address them in detail. However, by the time I understood the implications of this realization, I had already examined the formulas in detail. So, I am presenting the considerations why I consider the cited formulas in principle to be deficient [Part II], together with the particulars of the original critical analysis [Part III].

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