**A.
The birth of Einstein’s Relativity.**

In late June of 1905, German
mathematical physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) finished writing a
manuscript that he later referred to as his Special Theory of Relativity. (Einstein, 1905d [Dover, 1952, pp. 37 –
65]) This manuscript was written in
German and entitled: “On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.”[1] (*Id*., p. 37)

Einstein previously had theoretically applied the ‘Galilean
transformation equations’ to a ray of light transmitting at the constant
velocity of *c* and propagating relative to a material body moving
inertially away from the light ray at velocity v. The mathematical result was that Maxwell’s
constant transmission velocity of the light ray at *c* algebraically
appeared to vary or change to *c* - v or *c *+ v, depending upon the
speed and linear direction of the inertial motion of the material body. (see Chapter 19) Thus, for Einstein, these classical Galilean
transformation equations of mechanics did not appear to apply to the phenomena
of electromagnetic waves.

This apparent contradiction between
the mathematical laws of mechanics (Galilean Translational Relativity)[2]
and Maxwell’s law of electromagnetic waves (the constant transmission velocity
of light at *c* through empty space)[3]
created a theoretical ‘crisis’ for Einstein and many other scientists of the
early 20^{th} century. Einstein,
as well as the entire scientific community, was completely baffled by these
apparent mathematical ‘difficulties.’ (see
Chapter 19) In Einstein’s words:

“If every ray
of light is __propagated__ relative to the [stationary railway] embankment
with the velocity *c*, then for this reason it would appear that __another
law of propagation__ of light must necessarily hold with respect to the [linearly
moving] carriage—a result contradictory to the principle of relativity.[4]
(Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 23; see Figures 19.1 and 19.2)

Rather than discard one of these
supposedly cherished laws of physics (Galileo’s Relativity __or__ Maxwell’s
constant __propagation__ velocity of light at *c* relative to material
bodies), Einstein chose instead to attempt to __reconcile__ the apparent
mathematical contradiction between them by algebraically modifying the
troublesome Galilean transformation equations of mechanics. He attempted to accomplish this unnecessary
mathematical feat by borrowing a different set of *ad hoc* transformation
equations from Lorentz’s April 1904 treatise and substituting it for the
classical Galilean transformation equations.
(see Chapter 27) When Einstein
then applied this radical new set of ‘Lorentz transformation equations’ to a
ray of light propagating relative to the railway carriage inertially moving at
v in any linear direction with respect to the light ray, the velocity of the
light ray remained algebraically constant at *c. * (see the Preamble) In other words, the velocity of light
mathematically became an __invariant velocity of c__ relative to both inertial reference frames (the stationary railway
embankment on the inertially moving Earth and the linearly moving
carriage).

Einstein attempted to justify the substitution
of the Lorentz transformation equations for the Galilean transformation
equations, as his __artificial__ solution for the perceived mathematical
‘difficulties,’ by means of numerous illogical rationalizations. Most notably, they were his synchronization
of clocks to create a ‘common time’ for all observers and all events on every
frame of reference (Chapter 25), and his twin concepts which Einstein called
the Relativity of Simultaneity (time intervals) and the Relativity of Distance
(length). (Chapter 26)

Some of the bizarre mathematical
(spatial and temporal) consequences which resulted from substituting the
Lorentz transformation equations, and from Einstein’s definitions and
rationalizations (which defy experience, logic and commonsense), were: 1) the *ad hoc* and unobserved physical
contraction (shortening) of a material body or object in the direction of its
relative inertial motion (see Chapter 28);
2) the *ad hoc* and unobserved reciprocal dilation (slowing down)
of time intervals on such contracted body (see Chapter 28); 3) the unobserved and potentially enormous
theoretical increase in the mass of such contracted body depending upon its
velocity v relative to the velocity of light at *c* (see Chapter 31), and
a new relativistic formula for the composition of velocities. (see Chapter 29) The last five paragraphs suffice to describe
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity in a nutshell. [5]

Since 1905, Einstein’s Special Theory has gradually become accepted by the scientific community, and it is now considered to be a ubiquitous law of physics. Many have even called it a scientific revolution.[6] Professor Rigden recently described Special Relativity as a “super theory” and concluded that now: “any physical theory must incorporate Einstein’s relativity theory.” (Rigden, p. 101) This currently is also the conclusion of most other scientific theorists.

In late 1915, Einstein attempted to
generalize Special Relativity to include accelerated motions and all other
forms of motion, not just inertial motion (uniform velocity). This ‘General Theory of Relativity’ resulted
in many more *ad hoc*, unobserved and artificial mathematical consequences
and speculations. (Chapter 40) It also required the abandonment of Euclidian
geometry and the invention of a bizarre new theory of gravity (called ‘curved
spacetime’) in order to mathematically make his General Theory appear to
work. (Einstein, 1916 [Dover, 1952, pp.
111-164]) General Relativity in turn
spawned Einstein’s 1917 theory of a ‘finite spherical universe’ (Einstein, 1917
[Dover, 1952, pp. 177-188]) upon which much of current day cosmology is
based.

The influence of Special Relativity has also spread to other disciplines, such as philosophy, epistemology, art, and even poetry. “The theory of relativity…has become part of our culture.” (Rigden, p. 102)

**B. Some problems with Special Relativity.**

So is that the end of the
story? Are Einstein’s conjectures
concerning Special Relativity really valid, and have they received the
historical, logical and empirical scrutiny which they deserve? Hardly.
One huge fly in Einstein’s relativistic ointment turns out to be: that the mathematical ‘difficulties’ which
Einstein imagined concerning Maxwell’s constant velocity of light at *c*
and which he was attempting to reconcile with his mathematical Special Theory…__did
not even exist__. (see Chapter 21D and
the Preamble) There were no actual or
mathematical ‘difficulties’ that needed solving, reconciling, or Einstein’s
Special Theory. They only existed in Einstein’s
mind and constituted a paradox, which after sufficient analysis has the
following simple explanation.

Maxwell’s __transmission__ velocity of a light ray
at *c* *in vacuo *is __both constant__ with respect to the medium
of the vacuum of empty space through which it passes, and becomes a __relative
rate of velocity__ when such light ray __propagates__ over changing
distances with respect to all linearly moving bodies. The algebraic values (*c* + v and *c*
– v) which Einstein obtained by applying the Galilean transformation equations
to a light ray transmitting at velocity *c* through a vacuum and
propagating relative to the carriage moving inertially at v, did not result in a variation or __change__
of the constant __transmission__ velocity of light at *c*.[7]

The algebraic values *c* + v and *c* – v were
just the very natural __relative velocities__ of a light ray constantly
transmitting at *c* with respect to the medium of empty space as it __also
propagates__ over changing distance/time intervals (*c*t ± vt) relative
to a material body that is moving linearly at v either toward or away from the
light ray. (see Figures 21.1 and 21.2) These relative velocities of light are analogous
to the constant velocity of your automobile with respect to the motorway, which
__also__ has relative velocities with respect to the other autos that are
passing you at different constant velocities in either direction. (see Figure 21.6)

Einstein __misinterpreted__ such relative velocities
of light __propagation__ (*c* ± v) over changing distance/time
intervals with respect to linearly moving material bodies to be __varying
velocities__ for Maxwell’s constant __transmission__ velocity of light.[8] (Chapter 21D)
However, there is no __specific law__ for the __velocity of
propagation__ of a light ray over different changing distances and time
intervals and relative to linearly moving bodies.[9] Maxwell’s __constant__ velocity of light
at *c* *in vacuo* __only applies__ to a light ray __transmitting
relative to its medium of empty space__. [10]
(Chapter 6A) Einstein’s misunderstanding
and misinterpretation of these critical facts was one major false premise for
his Special Theory.[11] There are also many others. (see Figure 1.1)

In addition, the so-called ‘Galilean
transformation equations’ are a really a misnomer. They are really just __translation__
equations. (see Chapter 14) Such transmission equations should never have
been theoretically applied by Einstein to the constant transmission velocity of
a light ray at *c* propagating relative to linearly moving bodies. Why?
One reason is that such velocity of light is empirically and, by
definition, constant. The velocity of
light in a vacuum is always ‘invariant;’ it never varies in the medium of empty
space.[12] An invariant quantity cannot meaningfully be
mathematically transformed (changed) to a different quantity from one inertially
moving body to another inertially moving body.
If one attempts to algebraically transform or translate any invariant
constant velocity from one inertially moving body to another with Galilean
transformation equations, the result will automatically be a relative velocity
(like *c* – v or *c* + v).[13] Likewise, the Lorentz transformation
equations (which were designed by Lorentz to artificially change invariant
values, such as length) should never have been so applied, for similar
reasons. Einstein’s assumption that
either of such transformation equations could be meaningfully applied to the
constant transmission velocity of light at *c* was another major false
premise for his Special Theory.[14]

In reality, Michelson and Morley’s ‘missing
time interval’ for light propagation within his apparatus, which Einstein
sought to explain by an artificial and illusionary __contraction__ of the
distance interval (Einstein, *Relativity*,
pp. 58 – 60), is merely a paradox that is also easily explainable without any
assumed contraction of matter. There are
three real reasons for Michelson’s paradoxical null results: one theoretical, one empirical, and one
technical. (see Chapters 10, 11 and
12)

It also turns out that the mechanics concept of Galileo’s Relativity, in
any of its many forms, is irrelevant to the constant transmission velocity of
light at *c*, for several reasons.
For example, the two concepts (moving matter and light radiation) are so
different that they can never be unified or reconciled. (see Chapters 23 and 24) Thus, Einstein’s first fundamental postulate
(his radical and expanded mathematical ‘Principle of Relativity’) which
includes both light (EM) and optics as well as mechanics (matter in motion) is
meaningless. (see Chapter 24) It follows from the above, that Einstein’s elaborate
and contrived Special Theory, which was premised on his meaningless principle
of relativity, was both __unnecessary__ and empirically invalid from its
inception.

Einstein’s Special Theory is also
fraught with one false assumption, interpretation, and concept after
another. (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2) Let us discuss a few specific examples. The theory falsely assumes that the
non-material phenomenon of light should be analyzed and governed according to
the irrelevant concepts of mechanics.
(Chapters 19, 20, 23 and 24)
Einstein’s contraction hypothesis and his Lorentz transformation
equations were merely conjectural inventions of his imagination. (Chapters 10A, 15, 16 and 27) Einstein’s concepts of ‘simultaneity,’
‘common time,’ ‘proper time,’ and synchronization of clocks and events are hopelessly
flawed. For instance, every human
inertial observer has his own unique ‘personal time’ for the perception of
distant light events. Therefore,
Einstein’s concepts of a ‘common local time’ for all __spatially separated__
observers and events on the same inertial frame (no matter what its size)…are
invalid on their face. (Chapter 25)

The mathematical fix of Einstein’s Special Theory is predicated on the
false premise that a propagating ray of light must always have the same
absolute velocity of *c* with respect to every linearly moving material
body, regardless of such body’s location, its different linear velocity, or its
different direction of motion. This is
an impossible and invalid absolute concept.
(Chapter 21E) For example, this
result would be analogous to your automobile moving down a street at the
constant speed of 30 m/s relative to the street, and at the same time magically
be moving at a rate of exactly 30 m/s relative to every other moving vehicle in
the entire city, regardless of its location, its speed, or its direction of
motion. This absolute result would, of
course, be impossible. (Figure 21.6)

The theory falsely assumes that
matter (i.e. a material body) must physically contract in size, and that the
duration of time intervals on such contracted body must slow down depending
upon its velocity relative to *c*, in order for light to propagate in the
absolute and impossible way that Einstein conjectured. (Chapters 20G, 26 and 28) The theory is also based upon the idea that
the inertial motion of one body relative to the inertial motion of another body
will, if fast enough, cause the length of each body to physically shrink down
to nothing, will cause the duration of time intervals on each body to slow down
to zero, and will cause the mass of each body to become infinitely large.[15] (Chapters 28 and 31) In such chapters of this treatise, it is
demonstrated that all of these *ad hoc* mathematical predictions and
consequences of the Lorentz transformation equations are nothing more than
unobservable and untestable theoretical constructs.[16]

The above relativistic concepts and
Einstein’s Special Theory in general have resulted in many more *ad hoc*,
relativistic mathematical theories over the years, beginning with Einstein’s
formula for E = m*c*^{2} later in 1905 (Chapter 32), and
Minkowski’s Spacetime geometry in 1907-8.
(Chapter 33) A short list of the
others includes: Einstein’s *ad hoc*
formula for the relativistic composition of velocities (Chapter 29), the
applications of Einstein’s transformation equations to light, electricity and
the Doppler effect (Chapter 30), Relativistic Dynamics (Chapter 31), quantum
physics and particle physics (Chapter 34), quantum field theories and
Superstring Theory (Chapter 35), many of which are also circularly considered
to be experimental confirmations of Special Relativity.

Throughout most of
his writings on Special Relativity, Einstein was almost always talking
‘double-speak’ in order to achieve his theoretical agenda. For example, he may have couched a
measurement in the empirical terms of a human observer, a distant light flash,
a rigid rod, a body of reference, a time or a distance, but he actually
measured almost everything mathematically by hand and eye coordinates, by
simultaneous clock times, by frames of reference, by algebraic equations, by
distorting Lorentz transformations, by so-called ‘proper’ measurements, or by
some other method that __only had meaning for him__. The intended result was an air of mystery and
total __confusion__ by the reader.[17]

The dozens of so-called experimental
confirmations of Special Relativity have greatly helped to turn Doubting
Thomases into faithful, unquestioning believers and advocates. Yet when carefully scrutinized, it turns out
that __all__ of these so-called confirmations are in reality either
coincidental approximations, rank conjectures, empirically invalid concepts, misconceptions,
illogical interpretations, *ad hoc* mathematical consequences, circular
reasoning, unmerited guesses, explainable paradoxes (such as the M & M null
results), untestable speculations, wishful thinking, or the like. (see Chapters 36, 37 and 38) The author has also demonstrated that the
remaining so-called experimental confirmations are just repetitions of the
above or provably incorrect on their face, such as Einstein’s attempted
relativistic confirmation of the 1851 Fizeau experiment. (see Chapter 29).

It has been suggested by Einstein’s
disciples (in order to attempt to save his Special Theory) that the contraction
of matter and its reciprocal concept, the dilation (slowing down) of time
intervals, which mathematical consequences are the heart of Special Relativity,
are merely illusions of measurement rather than real physical processes.[18] (see Resnick, 1992, p. 472; D’Abro, 1950, pp.
150 – 151; Born, p. 254) On the other
hand, Einstein himself described such consequences as ‘physical behavior.’ (Einstein 1905d [Dover, 1952, p. 48];
Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 41)
Actually, they are neither. In
fact, such bizarre theoretical consequences do not exist in any form. They are only myths and illusions that
mathematically result from the Lorentz transformation equations, and result
from faulty analyses of hypothetical examples suggested by Einstein. (Chapters 26 and 28) Again, the so-called experimental confirmations
of these myths and illusions came in the form of speculative analogies to
physical processes, misinterpretations of physical experiments, conjectures,
and the invention of further invalid mathematical theories. Such relativistic myths are not unlike the
myths of “phlogiston,” “caloric,” and “ether” previously described in Chapters 1
and 6.

In fact, the mythical concepts of ether and Special Relativity are strangely similar. Both were invented in order to attempt to explain puzzling dilemmas and paradoxes. Both became almost universally accepted as valid. Both resulted in contrived theories that created more false and imagined consequences but no real solutions. Both were based on fallacious premises. Strangely enough, both are primarily absolute concepts, not relative ones.

A century or so ago the false concept of ether was
gradually exposed as being strictly a figment of scientific imagination, and
real explanations for some puzzling phenomena emerged. When the __false__ premises,
interpretations, assumptions, concepts and consequences of Special Relativity
are exposed and understood, and when the real solutions for paradoxical
results, mysterious phenomena and so-called confirmations are explained…then
all of the dilemmas, difficulties, illogical concepts, and imagined
consequences which surround and constitute Special Relativity will also
immediately disappear.

**C.
Special Relativity as a theory of measurement.**

Einstein’s followers attempted to justify Special Relativity by characterizing it as “a theory of measurement.” (Goldberg, p. 103) For example:

“The [Special] theory
says nothing about the nature of the world.
It only speaks to how __measurements__ are made when we begin to
explore questions about the world.” (*Id*.

They claim that Einstein’s bizarre relativistic concepts, such as Length Contraction and Time Dilation, are “only a consequence of our way of regarding [measuring] things and [are] not a change of a physical reality.” (Born, p. 254) For example:

“a rod in
Einstein’s theory has __various lengths__ according to the point of view
[measurement] of the observer. One of
these lengths, the [rest length] or proper length, is the greatest, but this
does not make it __more real__ than the others.” (*Id*.,
p. 255)

These concepts
might have some validity if several human observers were estimating the length
of a telephone pole from various distances away. (see Figure 3.8) However, Einstein (in effect) asserted and claimed
that all of his estimates and mathematical measurements of length resulted in
the real __physical__ length of the telephone poles, and that such
measurements __depended__ upon the relative velocity of the measurers.

As with all measurements of magnitude “that are treated within the theory of relativity,” any change in magnitude:

“says nothing
essential about the body itself, but results as an __artifact__ of the way __distances
and times are measured__ for the same events by different inertial
observers.” (Goldberg, p. 141)

Does the magnitude
of an object or a physical phenomenon (i.e. mass) moving with respect to the
observer who is measuring it…__actually physically__ change? Goldberg replied: “Within the theory of relativity this
question has no meaning. We might coin a
phrase: ‘Actually is as actually
measures.’” (*Id*., p. 147)

D’Abro attempted to explain and justify Einstein’s relativistic measurements and his resulting mathematical concepts and consequences, as follows:

“According to
Einstein, the [magnitude of any physical phenomenon changes] only in so far as
it is in __relative motion__ with respect to the observer. Were the observer to be attached to the
[physical phenomenon, no change] would exist; it would be the [physical
phenomenon] left behind which would now __appear__ to have suffered the
[change]. Thus mass follows distance,
duration and electromagnetic field in being a relative having __no definite
magnitude__ of itself and being essentially dependent upon the __conditions
of observation__.” (D’Abro, 1950, p.
160)

Resnick also attempted to describe and justify Einstein’s measurements of
length: “__No actual shrinkage__ [of
the rod] is implied, [there is] merely a difference in measured results…Special
Relativity is a theory of measurement that __simply__ says ‘motion affects
measurement.’”[19] (Resnick, 1992, pp. 472, 481)

The author can only respond with the
word: Baloney! All of the above attempted explanations,
rationalizations, justifications and apologies totally ignore the following
facts. Einstein intentionally
conjectured *ad hoc* that the
magnitudes of all physical phenomena (with only a few exceptions) are dependent
upon relative velocity. In other words,
that their magnitudes are measured (by Einstein’s *ad hoc* system of measurement) to change in proportion to their
relative velocity. Einstein arbitrarily
changed Galileo’s material concept of relativity so that it might also
theoretically apply to electromagnetic and optics. (Chapter 24)
Einstein intentionally contrived his ridiculous kinematic system of
measurement (Chapters 25 – 29) for the sole purpose of distorting most of
physics, because this was the only way he could make his impossible concept for
the absolute __propagation__ velocity of light at *c* (see Chapter 21 and the Preamble) appear to have any
validity. (see D’Abro, 1950, p. 162)

Einstein and his followers have
repeatedly referred to the mathematical consequences of Einstein’s surrealistic
Special Theory as resulting in new __real__ and __physical__ phenomena
with physical meanings, and they have spent decades trying to confirm such *ad hoc* consequences with empirical
results and artificial interpretations of experiments. (see Chapters 36, 37 and 38) Many of Einstein’s followers were fully
complicit with this pseudo-scientific process which now pervades most of
physics and many other scientific disciplines as well. As a result, Einstein is now revered (or
worshipped) as a scientific icon, and he was even named person of the 20^{th}
century by Time Magazine for inventing all of his mathematical gobbledygook.

To dismiss all of the above described concocted distortions and outright misrepresentations as merely resulting from a different point of view concerning measurements not only adds insult to one’s injury…it is also a direct affront to our intelligence. The wasted resources and other damages that have already been done to physics by Special Relativity in the name of legitimate science may be irreparable. In any case, they are water under the bridge. The only current remedy is to immediately discard Special Relativity to the scientific scrap heap, along with other destructive myths such as caloric, phlogiston and ether, and to return to an empirical and logical investigation and observation of reality.

**D.
The Universal Principle.**

The term ‘relativity’ in it broadest
sense refers to the relationship between natural laws and observers; in other
words, how the laws of nature apply relative to human observers. The overriding question explored by this
treatise, and in the following chapters, is:
Are the laws of nature valid for every human observer regardless of his
position, his time, his state of motion, or mathematics? Einstein claimed that in order for the
velocity of light to satisfy the first three parts of the above test, *inter
alia*, the following __conditions__ must be met: Einstein’s radical principle of relativity
must be applicable, his artificial concept of the absolute __propagation__
velocity of light at c must be applicable, the dimensions of linearly moving
bodies must contract, their mass must increase, and the duration of time
intervals on them must become slower, depending upon the relative velocity of
such bodies as compared to the velocity of light.

On the contrary, it shall be a major purpose of the remainder of this
treatise to demonstrate that the laws of nature have __always__ been the
same for all human observers, regardless of the relative velocities involved
and without the concepts of Special Relativity.
In other words, Einstein’s Special Theory was always unnecessary and
irrelevant as well as invalid. Similar
conclusions apply to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, his relativistic
theories of the Cosmos, and all the other *ad hoc* mathematical theories
described in the following chapters.

This treatise asserts the following
much broader, stronger, and __unconditional__ natural principle: “THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE THE SAME FOR ALL
HUMAN OBSERVERS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR POSITIONS, TIMES OR STATES OF
MOTION.” We shall call this the
‘Universal Principle.’ The Universal
Principle includes all disciplines of science, and does not require any
transformation equations, any coordinates, any frames of reference, any
specific mathematics, nor any special hypothesis or assumptions.

A ‘constructed theory’ is one that
begins with imagination and rationalizes empirical phenomena. A ‘principle theory,’ on the other hand,
begins with secure empirical foundations and deduces consequences or imagines
extensions. (see Folsing, p. 208) We will demonstrate that Einstein’s Special
Theory lacked __any__ empirical foundations and therefore was certainly a
contrived and constructed theory.

The First Part of this treatise has primarily dealt with the theories, experiments and assumptions that led to the creation of Special Relativity, many of which were contrived and false. The Second Part and remaining chapters explain and scrutinize Einstein’s Special Theory itself: its many false premises, postulates and assumptions; its dubious analogies, rationalizations, measurements, strained logic and interpretations;[20] its arbitrary claims, conjectures, and bizarre mathematical consequences; and the empirical invalidity of its so-called experimental confirmations. The remaining chapters also disclose and explain some astonishing answers to the paradoxes, misconceptions and distortions that Special Relativity creates, asserts and/or implies. The proof of these many assertions by the author lies before you, so good reading.

[1] The
phrase ‘electrodynamics of moving bodies’ in early 1905 generally referred to
the relationship or interaction between electromagnetism and matter in motion;
for example, the relative motion between a magnet and a conductor which could
produce an electromagnetic effect, such as an electric current. (see Miller, pp. 142 – 143) By 1905, many other scientists in addition to
Einstein had used the above phrase, including Lorentz, Hertz, Föppl and
Wein. (*Id*.; Folsing, pp. 62, 169,
171; Goldberg, p. 94) In his Special
Theory, Einstein generalized the above phrase to mean many other things.

[2] See Chart 24.3.

[3] See Chapter 6A, Figures 6.8 & 6.11, and Memo 6.10.

[4]
Einstein’s ‘principle of relativity’ in effect stated that the same
mathematical transformation equations must apply both: 1) to Newton’s laws of mechanics as
demonstrated by Galileo’s Relativity, and
2) to Maxwell’s law for the constant __propagation velocity__ of
light at *c* relative to material bodies.
(see Chapter 24; Einstein, 1905d [__propagation__
velocity of a light ray at *c* relative to linearly moving material
bodies.

[5] Don’t be concerned if you don’t fully understand the brief descriptions of these relativistic concepts, because all concepts are fully discussed, analyzed and explained in later chapters.

[6] Einstein
denied that his Special Theory differed “radically from the previous
developments in physics.” (Folsing, p.
211) In fact, he never used the term
‘revolution,’ and “would laugh when others used it.” (*Id*., p. 210)

[7] Only
variable or ‘mechanically covariant’ quantities (like forces or accelerations),
which co-vary with respect to each other __on__ different inertially moving
bodies, can be mathematically __transformed__ or changed from one inertially
moving body to another. (Goldberg, pp.
80 – 81) Einstein’s velocity dependent
concept of ‘co-variant’ coordinate magnitudes for different reference frames is
very different. (see Chapters 20E and
24A)

The __constant
transmission velocity__ of a ray of light at *c* empirically and by
definition __does not vary__, therefore its constant velocity cannot be
transformed or changed by __any__ mathematical transformation
equations. Light’s constant transmission
velocity at *c* only __translates__ from one position in space to
another position.

[8] If Einstein’s interpretation had been correct it would have constituted a violation of Maxwell’s EM equations and Maxwell’s theory that the velocity of light at c in a vacuum is always constant. (see Chapter 6A) But Einstein’s interpretation was not correct.

[9] Such relative velocities only occur on a case-by-case basis. (see Figure 21.3 and Chart 21.4)

[10] Thus
Einstein’s second fundamental postulate concerning the constant __propagation__
velocity of a light ray at *c* relative to linearly moving material bodies
is both meaningless and empirically invalid.
(see Chapters 20F and 21E)

[11] Without this false premise, there probably never would have been a Special Theory of Relativity. If the reader does not fully understand the above concepts, please be patient because they are fully explained and demonstrated in the next few chapters.

[12] This
was the empirical result of Michelson’s experiments and many other similar
light experiments. (see Chapters 7, 9
and 12) But the 19^{th} and
early 20^{th} century scientists could not believe them.

[13] A
similar result would occur if one attempted to transform or translate a
constant inertial velocity from one inertially moving body to another. A relative velocity would occur (i.e. v_{1}
– v_{2} or v_{1} + v_{2}).

[14] If the
Galilean transformation equations had not been so misapplied by Einstein, then
the relative velocities of *c* + v and *c* – v (the ‘difficulties’)
never would have resulted, and Einstein’s mathematical ‘solution’ to eliminate
these ‘difficulties’ (his Special Theory) never would have resulted either.

[15] This means that a body that has shrunk to nothing will have an infinitely large mass. This invalid theoretical result is logically invalid upon its face.

[16] In many ways, trying to read and understand Einstein’s Special Theory is like trying to read and understand Egyptian hieroglyphics without the Rosetta stone. Let this treatise be your Rosetta stone.

[17] There is a direct parallel between Einstein and Franz Kafka, Karl Mannheim and other symbolist writers of his early era.

[18] If Einstein’s contraction of matter is merely an illusion, then how does it explain the M & M paradox, which requires a real physical contraction of matter to explain Michelson’s missing time interval?

[19] Not true. Actually, motion only affects Einstein’s empirically invalid system of measurement.

[20] Einstein needed to resort to these artificial strategies, because his mathematical Special Theory lacked any empirical foundation or support.