**RELATIVITY
OF SIMULTANEITY AND RELATIVITY OF DISTANCE**

Again, we ask: why did Einstein artificially define simultaneity as the ‘synchronous time’ of all clock times and events at different locations on an inertial reference frame? French attempted to provide us with an answer:

“An immediate __consequence__ of Einstein’s
prescription for synchronizing clocks at different locations is that __simultaneity
is relative__, not absolute.” (French, p. 74)

What does this
statement mean? It means that Einstein’s
strange relativistic concepts, including simultaneity and the synchronizing of clock
times in a stationary inertial reference frame, resulted in artificial and
distorted coordinate and clock measurements __between__ different moving
reference frames (coordinate systems), which such strange concepts were designed
to cause.[1] Einstein
called these artificially distorted measurements, the ‘Relativity of
Simultaneity (duration)’ and the ‘Relativity of Distance.’

Resnick attempted to explain what French and Einstein were talking about.

“Suppose that
one inertial observer does find that two separated events [in his frame] are
simultaneous. Will these same events be
measured as simultaneous by an observer on another inertial frame which is
moving [translating] with speed *v* with respect to the first?…If not,
simultaneity is __not independent__ of the __frame of reference__ used to
describe events. Instead of being
absolute, simultaneity would be a relative concept.” (Resnick, 1968, pp. 52, 53)

“Therefore, two
separated events which are simultaneous with respect to one frame of reference
are not necessarily simultaneous with respect to another frame.” (*Id*., p. 54; see Figures 25.7 and 26.1)

Very
importantly, what French, Resnick and Einstein were really attempting to assert
with these dubious conjectures and rationalizations was: 1) that Einstein’s __mathematical__
measurements of time intervals (duration) and space intervals (distance) were __dependent
upon the relative velocity (vt) between__ inertial reference frames; and 2) that such *ad hoc* mathematical measurements resulted in __physical__ and __empirical__
concepts.

We already know from Römer’s 1675 deduction of the finite
velocity of light (Chapter 6C) that the illusion of apparent simultaneity of a
distant event (i.e. the eclipse of Io) is relative to the distance/time
interval delay of velocity *c* between the local observer and such distant
event. The greater the distance, the
greater the illusion and inexactitude, and the less the reality of actual
distant simultaneity. But these
empirical concepts of simultaneity were not what French, Resnick and Einstein
were talking about.

Resnick was trying to convince us that “two separated
events which are simultaneous [they occur at the same instant] with respect to
one frame of reference are not necessarily simultaneous with respect to another
frame” translating at v relative to the first frame. In other words, that Einstein’s absolute
concept of mathematical distant “simultaneity is __genuinely__ a relative
concept” because it “depends on the [relative velocity of the] reference frame
of the observer” (the coordinate measurer) and therefore that such simultaneity
is not independent of such relative motion.[2] (*Id*., pp. 54 – 56)

It must be realized and remembered that Einstein, French and Resnick were
only talking about clock time and coordinate __measurements from one co-moving
inertial frame of reference to another__ based on Einstein’s artificial
definitions of simultaneity and synchronous time and his artificial mathematical
methods of measurement.[3] They were not referring to Einstein’s
original __empirical__ example of a stationary simultaneous event (the __proximity__
of the observer in the station to the clock and the train), nor to Einstein’s
original empirical example of apparent distant simultaneity (the inexactitude
of the simultaneity of two events at __approximately__ the same place). Both of such original empirical examples by
Einstein were based upon the __empirical__ distance/time interval delay of velocity
*c* from a distant light event to a local observer’s eyes.[4]

It should also be emphasized at the outset of this chapter that
Einstein’s concepts of the Relativity of Simultaneity (duration) and the
Relativity of Distance (length) are merely conjectures, verbal illusions,
illogical deceptions and spurious theoretical consequences that result in
paradoxes. Such paradoxes are completely
explained by the empirical invalidity of Einstein’s __definitions__ for
simultaneous synchronous clock time (Chapter 25), by the invalidity of his physically
impossible absolutely constant __propagation__ velocity of light at *c*
(Chapter 21E), by his artificial coordinate measurements (Chapter 28), by his misapplication
of these concepts to events occurring in relatively moving reference frames,
and by his misinterpretations of such events (Chapter 26).

The correct empirical analysis __only__ involves the __distance/time
interval delay of light__ __transmitting__ with respect to the vacuum of
empty space at the constant velocity of *c* between the __position__ and
instant of light emission at its material light source (a “light event”), and
the different __position__ of an observer at the instant that she perceives
such light event. Each observer’s personal perceptions and
conclusions as to the instant in time of the occurrence of such distant light
event are dependent upon such distance/time interval delay of *c*, and
such relative __positions__. Nothing
more…it is just that simple.

If the transmission velocity of the light signal had been __instantaneous__
rather than finite, then there would be no distance/time interval delay of
light between the position and instant of such light emission and the position
and instant of its perception by each observer, and Einstein could not have
claimed the bizarre paradoxes and consequences described in this chapter…which
he incorrectly attributed to the relative inertial velocities of different
reference frames. Please read the rest
of this chapter and the rest of this treatise with the above simple conclusions
always in mind

Why was Einstein attempting to mislead and confuse the reader with these
paradoxical and empirically invalid concepts:
the Relativity of Simultaneity (duration) and the Relativity of
Distance? Because he needed such
concepts as a rationale and justification for his next *ad hoc*
concept: the substitution of the Lorentz
transformation equations in place of the Galilean transformation
equations. (Chapter 27) In other words, Einstein needed such
paradoxical and invalid concepts in order to further contrive his Special
Theory, all in order to mathematically fix ‘difficulties’ with the velocity of
light at *c* that did not actually
exist. (Chapters 21 and 22)

A. Einstein’s 1905 axiomatic description of the Relativity of Simultaneity.

In Section 2 of his 1905 Special
Theory, Einstein attempted to demonstrate, with axiomatic definitions, invalid
assumptions and thought experiments, that lengths and time intervals are __relative
quantities__ that depend upon the __relative velocities__ of their
reference frames. He needed to indulge
in this subterfuge in order to justify changing the Galilean transformations
into the Lorentz transformations (see Chapter 27), and so that distorted length
and time interval measurements would be mathematically consistent with his
Lorentz co-variant magnitude for the velocity of light at *c*. (Chapters 20E, 20F and
20G)

Einstein began Section 2 of his 1905 Special Theory by re-defining his two fundamental postulates (which he had mischaracterized as ‘principles’ in his introduction) in different terms, as follows.

1. Einstein’s
revised ‘Principle of Relativity:’ “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.” (Einstein, 1905d [Dover, 1952, p. 41])

In this
version, Einstein’s Principle of Relativity looks a bit more like Galileo’s
Relativity than in his first postulate.
(*Id*., pp. 37 – 38)
However, Einstein’s general reference to ‘the laws by which the states
of physical systems undergo change’ undoubtedly refers, not only to the laws of
mechanics and Galileo’s Relativity, but also to his *ad hoc* misassumption that __all__ physical phenomena (including
the velocity of light at *c*) undergo a
physical change by reason of their relative velocities.[5] (Chapters 20F, 20G and 24)

2.
Einstein’s revised Principle of the Universal Constancy
of the Velocity of Light: “__Any ray of
light__ moves __in the ‘stationary’ [inertial] system__ of co-ordinates
with the determined __velocity c__, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body. Hence

velocity = light path [distance]

time interval

where time
interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in § 1.” (*Id*., p. 41)

Einstein’s above
verbal description of the equation for ‘velocity *c*’ is identical to his
algebraic equation for velocity *c* contained in Section 1 of his 1905
treatise:

“The length to
be discovered by the operation (*b*) we
will call ‘the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.’ This we shall determine on the basis of our
two principles, and we shall find that it differs from L.” (Einstein, 1905d [Dover, 1952, p. 42])

Then, out of the blue, Einstein asserted
that: “Current kinematics tacitly
assumes that the lengths determined by these two operations are precisely
equal, or in other words, that a moving rigid body at the epoch *t* may in __geometrical__ respects be
perfectly represented by *the same*
body *at rest* in a definite
position.” (Einstein, 1905d [__sphere__, therefore has in
a state of motion—viewed from the stationary system—the form of an __ellipsoid__…__with
the axes__” __shortened__ or __contracted__ in the x __direction of
motion__.[10] (*Id*.,
p. 48)

Where did Einstein get the idea for these abstract
analogies?[11] In his April 1904 treatise, Lorentz “produced
a new version of that part of the theory of electrons which dealt with measurements
made in differing inertial frames of reference…He extended the notion of the __contraction__
from macroscopic objects to the fundamental entities of his theory, the
electrons, so that these carriers of the basic charge were now to be __deformable__,
changing from __spheres__ to __ellipses__ with the __minor axis in the
direction of motion__.” (Goldberg, p.
99; also see Lorentz, 1904 [__flattened
ellipsoids__ with their __smaller axes in the direction of motion__.” (*Id*.,
pp. 21 – 22) When one compares this
description by Lorentz with Einstein’s almost identical description in the
previous paragraph, it becomes obvious that Einstein (in 1905) copied Lorentz’s
April 1904 treatise and Lorentz’s ‘ellipsoid’ concept and analogy almost word
for word.

What was the reason for the above conjectures of a sphere
turning into an ellipsoid? Einstein was conjecturing
in 1905, as was Lorentz the year before in 1904 that __matter contracts__ in
the direction of motion. The only
differences between these conjectures was:
1) that Lorentz was asserting that such contraction was caused by the
ether, whereas Einstein was asserting that the contraction was caused by the
relative motion between reference frames; and
2) that Lorentz was attempting to defend the concept of ether, while
Einstein was attempting to defend Maxwell’s equations.

After Einstein’s conjectures concerning the theoretical lengths and shapes of bodies (spheres or ellipsoids) when they are measured in different frames of reference, he returned to his thought experiment for the measurement of rod M. Einstein then stated:

“Let a ray of
light depart from A at the time *t*_{A},
let it be reflected at B at the time *t*_{B},
and reach A again at the time *t'*_{A}. Taking into consideration the principle of
the constancy of the velocity of light we find that

*t*_{B} – *t*_{A} = *r*AB/*c*-v and
*t'*_{A} – *t*_{B} = *r*AB/*c*+v

where *r*AB denotes the length of the moving
rod—measured in the stationary system.” [12] (*Id*.

What do these equations tell us?
The first equation asserts that the clock time interval t_{B} –
t_{A} for the propagation of light ray 1 will be greater than distance
rAB in the direction of the rod’s motion of v, because the velocity of the
emitted light ray 1 __relative to__ the moving mirror at B will be *c*
– v, or less than *c*.[13] The second equation asserts that the clock
time interval t'_{A} – t_{B} for the propagation of light ray 2
will be smaller than distance rAB in the direction opposite to such motion,
because the velocity of light ray 2 will be *c* + v __relative to__ the
rod’s end A moving toward the light ray 2 at v, or greater than *c*. In other words, the distance that the light
ray must propagate in each direction is different, and the velocity of the
light ray changes in each direction.

Figure 26.1
would appear to confirm these interpretations, because light ray 1 transmitting
at the constant velocity of *c* would theoretically
have a __greater distance__ to propagate at a velocity of *c* – v from point A to moving point B' in
the direction of motion v, than from point A to point B on stationary rod
M. Similarly, light ray 2 would theoretically
have a lesser distance to propagate at a velocity of *c* + v from mirror B' to moving end A' in the direction opposite to
motion v, than from point B to point A on stationary rod M.[14]

Let us now further analyze what __theoretically__ happens in Figure
26.1, according to Einstein. The clock
observer at point A on the moving system S' measures the clock time of event E_{1}
(light emission) to occur at synchronous clock time t_{A} (3
o’clock). The clock observer at point B'
on S' measures the clock time of event E_{2} (light reflection) to
occur at synchronous clock time t_{B}' (approximately 2.1 nanoseconds
past 3 o’clock), because of the theoretically longer distance and time interval
that light ray 1 must propagate from the light source (at A) to the mirror
linearly moving away (at B'). Thereafter
the clock observer at point A' on S' measures the clock time of event E_{3}
(light receipt at rod end A') to occur at synchronous clock time t'_{A}'
(approximately 4.05 nanoseconds past 3 o’clock, because of the theoretically
shorter distance and time interval that the light ray 2 must propagate from the
mirror (at B') to the light source (at A') linearly moving toward light ray 2.[15]

Whereas, the clock observer at stationary point 2 on stationary system S
measures the clock time of event E_{1} at clock time 3 o’clock, the clock
observer at stationary point 8 then measures the clock time of event E_{2}
at clock time 3 o’clock plus 2.0 nanoseconds, and thereafter the clock observer
at stationary point 2 measures event E_{3} at clock time 3 o’clock plus
4.0 nanoseconds.[16] Therefore, according to Einstein, the events
E_{2} and E_{3} measured on the moving system S' are not
simultaneous with the same events measured on the stationary system S.[17]

In Einstein’s own words:

“Observers moving with the moving rod would thus
find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the
stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.” (Einstein, 1905d [

“So we see that
we cannot attach any *absolute* signification to the concept of
simultaneity,[18] but
that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous,
can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a
system which is in motion relatively to that system.”[19] (*Id*., pp. 42 – 43)

It may not appear obvious from Einstein’s thought experiment and from his
above spurious conclusions, but all that Einstein was attempting to prove in §
2 of his 1905d treatise was that: the simultaneity
(or the equivalence) of time intervals is a __relative concept__ which
depends upon the __relative velocity__ of two different reference frames.[20] In other words, that the __quantity of time
is velocity dependent__.

Further conclusions which Einstein implied from the above invalid thought
experiment appear to be as follows.
Since Maxwell’s velocity of light is a constant *c*, it cannot propagate over two different distances on the moving
system S' during the same time interval.
Therefore rod M must have __contracted__ in the direction of motion v
and the time on rod M must have dilated or slowed down in such direction of
motion. These are substantially the same
conclusions which Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Einstein arrived at in order to
explain the M & M paradox.

The obvious reason for Einstein’s confusion (and his above conclusion) was that the clock time intervals that he measured (or rather computed) between light events on moving rod M were not equal to the clock time intervals that he measured (or computed) when rod M was at rest. Jammer states this conclusion somewhat differently:

“Einstein’s
proof of the relativity of [distant] simultaneity is based on the __mathematical
fact__ that the [different equations
for time intervals measured on moving rod M] imply that for non-zero velocity v
the synchrony equation t_{B}
– t_{A} = t'_{A} – t_{B} cannot be satisfied.” (Jammer, 2006, p. 118)

However, the above analysis of Einstein’s confusion merely results in a paradox.

What is the answer to this
paradox? Einstein’s above thought
experiment was little more than a different version of Michelson’s 1881 and
1887 interference of light experiments.
(compare Figures
26.1, 26.2 and 9.2) Like Maxwell, Michelson and Lorentz before
him, Einstein falsely assumed that a light ray propagating to and fro between a
relatively stationary light source and a relatively stationary mirror must
propagate a __greater distance__ in the direction of motion, i.e. the
Earth’s solar orbital motion. (see
Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 58 – 60;
Chapter 9) This is why Einstein’s time
interval for light propagation (t_{B}' – t_{A}) was greater in
the direction of motion v in Figure 26.1, than the time interval (t'_{A}'
– t_{B}') in the opposite direction.[21]

In reality, a light ray propagating
to and fro between a __relatively stationary__ light source and mirror
propagates over the same __finite distance__ in each direction during the
same __time interval__, regardless of the assumed in-tandem motion of the
light source/mirror system through space.
This was the empirical result of all of Michelson’s interference of
light experiments. It was also the
empirical result of Fizeau’s 1851 interference of light experiments, and dozens
of other similar experiments. In all of
these experiments, the light source and the mirrors do not physically displace
from the propagating light ray, as was assumed by Maxwell, Michelson, Lorentz,
Einstein, and everyone else. (see
Chapters 9 – 12) This scenario is also
what theoretically should have happened in Einstein’s above described 1905
thought experiment concerning relative simultaneity. Thus, such thought experiment and its conclusions
were fundamentally flawed, because they were based on a fundamental false
premise.[22]

What was wrong with Einstein’s 1905 thought experiment and attempted ‘proof’ of the Relativity of Distant Simultaneity? The short answer is: everything. For example:

1. Einstein’s thought experiment (Figure 26.1) essentially
describes what theoretically and paradoxically was __supposed__ to happen in
the Michelson and Morley ether experiments.
(see Figures 26.2
and 9.2) However, we now know that there is no __greater
distance/time interval__ for a light ray to propagate to and fro in air or *en
vacuo* between two relatively stationary points (A and B). Why?
Because, regardless of the in-tandem motion of the two points (A and B) through
space, the two points do not physically change their positions relative to the
tip of the propagating light ray. Nor
does the mirror at point B physically displace from the light source at point A
or from the tip of the light ray, or vice versa. (see Chapters 10 and 12)

2. Restated somewhat
differently: there is no relative
velocity of *c* – v or *c* + v for the light ray to propagate to and
fro at the constant transmission velocity of *c* between two relatively
stationary points, A and B. The mirror
in Einstein’s thought experiment was __not physically displacing__ from the
tip of the propagating light ray.[23] Nor was the A end of the rod physically
changing its position relative to the tip of the light ray upon the return
journey. (see Chapter 12)

3. Therefore Einstein’s above thought experiment was, in effect, invalidly premised upon the existence of stationary ether, and upon the myth of a greater distance of propagation in the direction of motion. For these reasons alone it was totally meaningless.

4. All clocks should measure the
same time interval for a light ray to propagate at *c* to and fro over the
same finite distance L. The time
interval of light propagation would only change to *c* – v or *c* + v if the
distance of light propagation changed, which could not happen between the
relatively stationary points A and B.
(Chapter 12)

5. In other words, the constant
transmission velocity of light did not change from *c* to *c* – v nor
to *c* + v in opposite directions of propagation, as Einstein’s thought
experiment implies.

6. Einstein’s __algebraic__
measurement of time intervals for light propagation was not only invalid; it
was also only a rough abstract approximation.

7. The relative motion of the two equivalent inertial systems is irrelevant to the measurements of time and space on such systems. (see Chapter 26E)

8. Einstein’s above described thought experiment was so convoluted, confusing and incorrect that it was almost impossible to really understand what he was asserting without simplifying it, restating it, interpreting it, and graphically illustrating it in the way the author has done.

9. Einstein’s 1905 thought
experiment does not demonstrate that lengths and time intervals are relative __quantities__
that depend upon the relative velocities of their reference frames,[24]
nor does it empirically demonstrate Einstein’s concept of the Relativity of
Simultaneous events, nor is it “the first ever rigorous proof of the relativity
of a physical concept,” as Jammer asserts.
(Jammer, 2005, p. 116)

Einstein did not specifically refer to his concept of the Relativity of Lengths (other than in the title to Section 2), but the implication of this relativistic concept is obvious in his examples. (see Miller, pp. 192 – 193) Miller also acknowledged that: “Einstein’s demonstration in § 2 of the Relativity of Simultaneity is rarely analyzed.” Miller’s explanation was:

“Most likely the reason is that the relativistic [Lorentz]
transformation equations for the space and time coordinates provide the __quickest__
means for deducing the properties of time and simultaneity in moving reference
system.” (Miller, p. 192)

But this theoretical jump from simultaneity and synchronous clocks to the Lorentz transformations is like putting the cart light years before the horse. Without § 2 of his 1905 treatise as a rationale, there was absolutely no theoretical justification for substituting the Lorentz transformations for the Galilean transformations.[25]

Also, as we have just demonstrated with Figure 26.1, Figure 26.2, and with a
correct analysis of Einstein’s § 2 thought experiment, deductions made directly
from the Lorentz transformations or other algebraic equations are often empirically
meaningless, distorted, or invalid.
Why? Because *inter alia* they cannot demonstrate or illustrate what is really
happening like a graphic illustration in conjunction with a correct analysis
can. Very importantly, the discussion in
this Section also vividly demonstrates the misconceptions and faulty reasoning
that can occur by __relying solely__ on thought experiments or on algebra
(or any other form of mathematics) for our physical and empirical concepts.

**B. Einstein’s
1916 definition and description of the Relativity of Simultaneity.**

Because Einstein’s 1905 so-called ‘proof’ of the Relativity of Simultaneity
received so much criticism from the scientific community, Einstein decided to
invent a different thought experiment in order to attempt to demonstrate such
concept which would not require the use of clocks. In 1916, Einstein asserted in his book *Relativity*
that there was yet another __invalid tacit assumption__ in classical
physics. Classical physics assumed that
“the time interval [duration] between two events is __independent__ of the
condition of __motion__ of the body of reference.” (Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 34,
37) This fact was tacitly assumed by all
classical physicists before 1916 for the simple reason that there was no empirical
reason not to assume it. Nevertheless, Einstein
claimed that this tacit assumption was invalid, and he interpreted motion to
mean ‘velocity.’ (*Id*.__does
depend__ upon the __relative velocity__ between such events and that the
proof of this claim was that simultaneity (two events occurring at the same
instant) is a __relative concept__.
In other words, Einstein asserted that the simultaneity of two distant events
“depends on the coordinate system chosen, or, in brief, [simultaneity] is a
frame dependent [or velocity dependent] concept.”[26] (Jammer, 2006, p. 116)

Despite his failed 1905 attempt to demonstrate that simultaneity (the
quantity of time intervals) was a relative concept that depends upon the
relative velocity of two reference frames, and our obvious conclusions to the
contrary, Einstein (in 1916) again used his definitions of ‘simultaneity,’
‘synchronous time,’ ‘common time,’ and the ‘proper time of an inertial system’
in another attempt to justify discarding such so-called invalid tacit
assumption of classical physics: that
“the time-interval [duration] between two events is independent of the __condition
of motion__ (velocity) of the body of reference.” (Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 34)

In 1916, Einstein asserted that the __duration__ (quantity) of the
time interval of a light event as viewed by an observer on a moving carriage is
different than the __duration__ of the time interval of such light event as
viewed by an observer on the relatively stationary railway embankment. Restated, that the duration of a time interval
(i.e. the continuance of the existence of things in the Cosmos, or eternity) at
one position (i.e. on a moving carriage) is either longer or shorter than the
duration of such time interval at another position (i.e. on a stationary
embankment), because of relative motion or relative velocity (changes of
position) between such inertial reference frames. (*Id.*, pp. 29 –
31) On the contrary, we shall hereafter
further demonstrate that Einstein was still merely trying to fool or confuse
the reader, and that the above tacit assumption of classical physics __is
correct__.

In order to again attempt to ‘prove’ his conjectures concerning the __velocity
dependence of physical phenomena__, Einstein in 1916 devised a new and
different thought experiment for his definition of distant simultaneity. (see Figure 26.3) This time it “was a two ray definition” or
illustration of simultaneity and it was primarily empirical, but it “did not
make use of clocks.”[27] (see Jammer, 2006, p. 130)

In Einstein’s new (primarily empirical) velocity dependent thought
experiment, Einstein stipulated that there were two simultaneous lightning
flashes (light rays) at points A and B on the railway embankment. These flashes simultaneously reflected on two
mutually perpendicular mirrors at their midpoint M so that the observer at M
perceived the two lightning flashes simultaneously.[28] Einstein stated that the positions A, M and B
on the railway embankment also correspond to positions A_{1}, M_{1}
and B_{1} on the moving carriage,[29]
but the observer at M_{1} on the carriage is moving to the right at
velocity v toward the lightening flash at B, and away from the lightening flash
at A. (see Einstein, *Relativity*,
pp. 29, 30) Thus, concluded Einstein,
the observer who has moved from position M_{1} to M_{2} on the
moving train “will see the light emitted from B __earlier__ than he will see
that emitted from A.”[30] (*Id.*, p. 30; see Figure 26.3)

It is obvious that this “earlier” perception of light from B naturally
results because the observer at M_{1} on the carriage has moved to the
new __position__ M_{2} at the instant she perceives the distant flash
from B, which position M_{2} has a __shorter__ distance/time
interval delay of the light signal at *c* from B than the light
propagating from the now more distant flash at A. This same result would have occurred if the
carriage was __not moving__ and the woman on the stationary carriage at
position M_{1} had merely walked to a new __position__ at M_{2}
before the lightning flashes occurred.
Thus, the ‘motion’ of the carriage (and its ‘relative velocity’) is __not
necessary__ to Einstein’s example.[31] Only the __change of position__ of M_{1}
__relative__ to B and the resulting __shorter distance__ for light to
propagate, are relevant to Einstein’s example.

Nevertheless, Einstein’s dubious conclusions concerning the above scenario were quite different:

“Observers who
take the railway train as their __reference-body__ must therefore come to
the conclusion that the lightening flash *B* took place __earlier__
than the lightening flash *A*.”[32] (Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 30)

“We thus arrive
at the important result: Events which
are simultaneous with reference to the __embankment__ [i.e. two lightning
flashes] are not simultaneous with respect to the __train__, and *vice
versa* (relativity of simultaneity).[33] __Every reference-body__ (co-ordinate
system) __has its own particular time__;[34]
unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers,
there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.” [35] (*Id.*,
pp. 30, 31)

“So,”
further concluded Einstein, “we cannot attach any __absolute__ significance
to the concept of simultaneity.”[36] (Einstein, 1905 [Dover, 1952, p. 42])

In Einstein’s above
example (vis. “Every reference body…has its own particular time”), he
incorrectly attributed the lack of identical perceptions of simultaneous
lightning flashes to the difference in his __common local time__ (proper
time) between the train __as a whole__ and the railway embankment __as a
whole__. But there is no such thing as
‘common local time’ or ‘proper time’ for numerous spatially separated observers
or events situated on an inertially moving body (reference frame).[37] (Chapter 25)
Every human observer on the moving train (A_{1}, M_{1},
B_{1}) and every human observer on the relatively stationary embankment
(A, M, B) has a different personal perception (measurement) of the light
events, instants, time intervals and distance intervals involved than every
other observer, because of the different unique position of each observer’s
eyes and the different distance/time interval delay of *c* relative to
each observer’s unique position…regardless of any ‘synchronized times,’ ‘common
times,’ or ‘proper times’ arbitrarily stipulated to be simultaneous, or any
common motions, relative velocities, frames or bodies of reference
involved.

Even though each human observer
on the uniformly moving train (A_{1}, M_{1}, B_{1}) may
share a common motion, they do not share a common personal perception of the
instant of occurrence of events with the other observers, because the
distance/time interval delay of *c* from the __position__ of a distant
light event is different relative to each observer’s eyes and his unique
position. For example, the perceived
local time of the lightning strike at B will be different for positions A and A_{1}
than for positions B and B_{1}, because the light signal from B takes
longer to reach the A positions than the B positions. (Figure 26.3) Each observer on the carriage and on the
embankment has a different personal time of observation of lightning strikes at
A and B, because of each observer’s different __position__ (distance)
relative thereto, regardless of any arbitrarily stipulated synchronous time, common
time, or the common motion involved.
Likewise, an observer standing in

All that Einstein’s
above conclusions and spurious rationales really mean is that __each
observer’s__ personal perception of simultaneity is __relative to and
depends upon__: 1) the relative __position__
(distance) of each observer and the relative __position__ (distance) of each
observed distant light event at the __instant__ of emission of such light
and at the __instant__ of each observer’s personal perception
thereof…and 2) the __distance/time
interval delay of c__ from the distant light event to each observer’s
eye. The particular inertial reference
body, its method of changing its relative positions, and its relative velocity
are completely irrelevant to each observer’s personal perception or measurement. The fact that Einstein was dealing with
absolute mathematical distant simultaneity,

At this juncture, let
us return to Rohrlich’s experimental test concerning simultaneity in our
Chapter 25F, where he claimed that his geometrical space-time diagrams
demonstrated Einstein’s concepts of Simultaneity and the Relativity of
Simultaneity. (Figure 25.7) Rohrlich stated that an observer on a rocket
ship R that was moving uniformly in a straight line relative to clock/event A,
clock/event B and event C would not measure the time for a light signal to
propagate from point A to point B to be simultaneous with the time for a light
signal to propagate from point A' to point B', which coordinate points were
moving relative to R. He concluded
that: “Simultaneity depends on the
reference frame[38] [and
that] this conclusion [which] lies at the very basis of the special theory of
relativity…follows from the second principle…[Einstein’s empirically invalid
postulate concerning the absolute velocity of light at *c*].”[39] (Rohrlich, p. 65)

Rohrlich then
constructed two space-time diagrams. He
claimed that Figure 25.7C (which illustrated coordinate non-simultaneity)
proved his point that “only observers at rest with one another [Figure 25.7B] will
agree on the [coordinate] simultaneity of two events.” (*Id*., pp. 64, 65) In reality, what Rohrlich was actually
demonstrating was that coordinate measurements in a relatively stationary
reference frame are distorted in a relatively moving reference frame. (see Chapter 28)

The answers to the
paradox between a human observer’s empirical simultaneity and Einstein’s
absolute mathematical form of simultaneity are as follows. The times of A and B (in Figure 25.7A) never
were empirically simultaneous; they were only mathematically synchronous. The relativistic geometrical convention that
allows Minkowski’s world lines for relative inertial motions to be at an angle
is a major reason for the geometrical disparity.[40] The reasons why the times could be empirically
different for R are because of relative changes of position of A, B and R, and
the resulting changes of the empirical distance/time interval delay of *c*
relative to each position. The reasons
why the light signals had the same velocity *c* relative to each linearly
moving point (A, B and R) is because Einstein’s second postulate for the
absolutely constant propagation velocity of *c*, regardless of the
relative linear motion of its targets, is incorrect. (see Chapters 20F, 21E and 22) In other words, comparing empirical human
simultaneity (a relative concept) with Einstein’s absolute concept of
mathematical simultaneity (and especially Minkowski’s distorted geometrical
depictions thereof) is like comparing fire and water.

Let us now return to
Einstein’s 1916 description of the Relativity of Simultaneity. There is no question that the __instant__
of each human observer’s personal perception of such light events (lightning
strikes) on the embankment is different than each moving human observer’s
personal perceptions on the train: 1)
because of such moving observer’s different __initial position __(A_{1},
M_{1}, B_{1}) on the train relative to light events A and B,
and the different distance/time interval delay of *c* relative to such
different positions; and 2) because of
their __changed positions__ to A_{2}, M_{2}, and B_{2}
on the moving train relative to light events A and B, and the changed
distance/time interval delay of *c* relative to such changed positions.[41] (Figure 26.3) No human observer on the train or on the
embankment perceives such distant light events exactly the same way or at
exactly the same instant in time as any other observer. In fact, every observer’s personal perception
of such time intervals and the simultaneity (or lack thereof) of such distant
light events __is relative__ and is measured differently depending upon the
distance/time interval delay between the position of the light event (i.e.
lightning) at its instant of emission, and the unique position of each human observer
at the instant of his or her personal perception thereof. These are not really profound
conclusions.

However, Einstein drew several empirically illogical and dubious far-reaching inferences from his above seemingly innocuous example. First, Einstein asserted that:

“…the __time__
[interval] required by a particular occurrence [light event] with respect to
the carriage must __not__ be considered equal to the __duration of the same
occurrence__ [light event] as judged from the embankment.” (Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 31)

Here, Einstein
is apparently equating differences in the personal time intervals of __perception__
of distant events by human observers at different positions due to different
distance/time interval delays of *c*, with the (absolute elapsed) __duration__
of such time intervals…the continuance of the existence of things in the Cosmos
(or eternity). Here we are not just
dealing with the difference between empirical human simultaneity and Einstein’s
absolute mathematical simultaneity.
Rather we are dealing with metaphysics.

This empirical misanalysis, misconception and misstatement can be
considered as a theoretical foundation for Einstein’s empirically invalid
“dilation (slowing down) of time” or eternity concept found later in his book *Relativity*,
to-wit:

“…the
time which elapses between two strokes of the [moving] clock is not one second
but 1/√1-v^{2}/c^{2} seconds, i.e. a somewhat __larger__
[slower] time.[42] __As a consequence of its motion__ the
clock goes more __slowly__ than when __at rest__.”[43] (*Id.*, p. 42)

As his second empirically illogical conclusion from his 1916 Relativity of Simultaneity thought experiment, Einstein asserted as follows:

“Now before the
advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in
physics that __the statement of time [perceptions of simultaneity] had an
absolute significance__, i.e. that it [the duration of time] is __independent__
of the __state of motion__ of the body of reference.[44] But we have just seen that this assumption is
incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity.”[45] (Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 31;
Einstein, 1905d [Dover, 1952, pp. 42, 43])

Here, Einstein
was again attempting to equate “the __state of motion__ of a body” (its
change of position over time, or velocity) with the body’s specific ‘position
in space’ at the specific instant of a distant light emission and the personal
perception thereof by a human observer at a different specific position.

It is acknowledged that the personal time of perception of a distant
light event is __not independent__ of the __position__ of the emitting
body at the instant of the emission of light, nor of the __position__ of the
human observer at the instant of his personal perception thereof, nor is it
independent of the appropriate distance/time interval delay of *c*. It is also acknowledged that the personal
time of perception of distant light events does not have “an absolute
significance,” but rather occurs because the __position__ of a distant light
event and its distance/time interval delay of *c* are __relative__ to
the specific position and personal time of each different human observer.

But this is not what Einstein was asserting with his statements about
relative motion, relative simultaneity, and the changing ‘duration of the same
occurrence.’ (Einstein, *Relativity*,
p. 31) Einstein was asserting that the __absolute
duration of the continuous existence of things in the Cosmos__ (in other
words, ‘eternity’) slows down because of relative motion (really, relative
change of position). In effect, Einstein
was asserting that the relative simultaneity and the dilation (slowing down) of
time intervals on a body (or frame) is __dependent__ upon the state of
motion (relative velocity) of that body (or frame).[46] Empirically, these conjectures constitute a
form of metaphysics or even pseudo-science.

Thirdly, based on his 1916 Relativity
of Simultaneity thought experiment, Einstein also claimed that his so-called
Galilean Addition of Velocities concept caused the ‘difficulties’ that he
described in Chapter 7 of his book *Relativity*.[47] Why?
Because, according to Einstein, “one second” on the moving carriage was
assumed (by the followers of __in duration__ to “one second” on the stationary railway
embankment. But Einstein claimed that he
had just ‘proven’ that the __duration__ of “one second” of time was less or
slower on the moving carriage,[48]
ergo the __reciprocal distance__ traveled by a walking man or by a light ray
in the moving carriage must also be less.

According to Einstein, this lesser distance was due to his concept of the
__contraction in length__ of the moving carriage in its direction of motion
(relative velocity).[49]
(Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 32, 33, 40, 41) In Einstein’s own words, because of his
concept of the Relativity of Simultaneity (Duration): “It cannot be concluded that the man in
walking [for one second in the moving carriage] travels the __distance__ w
relative to the railway line in a __time__ which is equal to one second as
judged from the embankment.”[50] (*Id*., p. 31) This statement is equivalent to Einstein’s
reciprocal concept of the Relativity of Distance, which we shall discuss in the
next section, and which empirically is also a form of metaphysics or
pseudo-science.[51] The Relativity of Distance may in turn be
considered to be a foundation of Einstein’s Contraction of Length concept,
which mathematically results from his Lorentz transformations and his dubious
methods of coordinate measurements. (see
Chapters 27 and 28)

The above deduction of Einstein’s *ad
hoc* Relativity of Distance concept and his *ad hoc* Contraction of Length concept from his *ad hoc* and empirically invalid Relativity of Simultaneity concept
is an excellent example of the house of cards constructed by Einstein and known
as Special Relativity. As we previously
mentioned, Einstein began with a false premise (the impossible absolutely
constant velocity of *c*) and then
deduced one *ad hoc* concept from
another *ad hoc* concept, over and over
again, in order to arrive at mathematical concepts, conclusions, formulas and
consequences.

Einstein also asserted that all of the above bootstrap and fuzzy logic concerning
the Relativity of Simultaneity explained the ‘difficulty’ of how light appeared
to propagate relative to the stationary embankment at *c* and relative to
the moving carriage at *c* – v. In
Einstein’s words:

“…if we discard
this [tacit] assumption [that the duration of time, or eternity, does not vary nor
slow down depending upon the motion or relative velocity of a body of reference],
then the __conflict__ between the law of the propagation of light *en
vacuo* and the principle of relativity…disappears.”[52]
(Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 31)

We have just discussed Einstein’s *ad hoc* and coordinate concept of
the Relativity of Duration (time intervals), which he mischaracterized as “the
Relativity of Simultaneity” in his book *Relativity*. (*Id.*, pp. 29-31) We have also seen that each human observer’s
personal local perception of the time intervals of distant events is a valid
concept. However, Einstein’s strained mathematics
and illogical examples, analogies, metaphors, rationalizations and geometrical
illustrations concerning variations in duration (eternity, or different elapsed
time intervals for the same occurrence) based on relative motion (relative
velocity) and the ‘common time’ of an inertial reference system—in order to attempt
to ‘prove’ that his absolute mathematical definition of distant simultaneity is
relative, that the quantity of time intervals are velocity dependent, that the duration
of time slows down, and that moving objects contract in length—are all
completely without empirical merit. [53]

**C. Einstein’s invalid concept of
the Relativity of Distance (Length)**

In
1916, Einstein also attempted to justify discarding what he called a second
invalid tacit assumption of classical physics, vis. that “the __space-interval
(distance)__ between two points of a rigid body is __independent__ of the __condition
of motion__ of the body of reference.”[54] (Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 34) Einstein asserted that, __because of
relative motion__ (relative velocity), the measurement of distance on a
moving body of reference (i.e. a train) is different when measured congruently
by the relatively stationary passenger inside the train using a rigid meter
rod, than when measured visually and by coordinates by an observer from the
embankment.[55] He called this concept, the ‘__Relativity of
Distance (or length)__.’ [56] (Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 32,
33)

It
should be mentioned at the outset of this Section 26C that Einstein’s
‘Relativity of Distance’ is substantially the same concept as his ‘Relativity
of Simultaneity’ (Duration), because points on a rigid body can be considered
to be light events, and the time interval of light propagation between them is
equivalent to a distance. Except for
Einstein’s assertion that one cannot simultaneously measure with coordinates
the distance between the front end and the rear end of a linearly moving object
(which we will analyze and discuss in Chapter 28), only the semantics are
somewhat different with respect to such theoretical __twin concepts__.

Einstein tried to justify his concept of the Relativity of Distance (that
__distance or length changes with relative motion__ or relative velocity) by
way of the following thought experiment.
In Figure 26.5,
the passenger at M_{1} on the moving train uses a rigid meter rod to
congruently measure the distance from point A_{1} to point B_{1}
on the floor of the train. An observer
standing at position B on the stationary railway embankment marks the positions
on the embankment opposite where she perceives points A_{1} and B_{1}
to be. She will mark B exactly opposite
B_{1}, because there is no substantial distance/time interval delay of *c*
for this measurement. But she will mark
her perception of the position of A_{1} at A_{3}, because A_{1}
is farther away from B and by the time she sees it, A_{1} has moved to
position A_{2}. Therefore, the
distance between A_{3} and B is obviously different and __shorter__
than the distance between A_{1} and B_{1}. [57]
But this difference in perceived distance is due solely to the distance/time
delay interval of *c* from __position__ A_{2} to the position
of the observer B at the __instant of her perception__ of A_{2}
being opposite to A_{3}, and not because of any relative motion
involved *per se*.[58] Such relative motion of the train merely
facilitated B’s perception and measurement at certain positions.

For obvious reasons, Einstein made sure that the measurement of length on
the moving inertial system (the carriage) would not include the empirical distance/time
interval delay of *c*. How? Because his observer M_{1} on such moving
inertial system __physically__ and congruently measured the exact length
from A_{1} to B_{1} on the floor of the carriage by using a
rigid meter rod, which congruent method of measurement does not involve a
visual estimate of the distance nor the distance/time interval delay of *c*. Whereas, the observers situated on the
inertial system at rest (the embankment) were required to __visually__
measure (estimate) the length from A_{1} to B_{1} on the
carriage from different positions and distances, which __imprecise__ method
of measurement __does__ necessarily involve the distance/time interval delay
of *c*. In other words, Einstein
required __different methods for measurement__ of distance by various
observers on different inertial systems.
Naturally, such measurements would be different (slightly shorter or
slightly longer), depending upon the relative positions involved and because of
such dubious methods of measurement.[59]

Based on his above example, Einstein asserted that “the length of the
train __as measured__ from the embankment may be __different__ from that
obtained by measuring in the train itself.” [60] (Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 33) Nevertheless, it is obvious that all of the
distances from A to B, from A_{1} to B_{1}, from A_{2}
to B_{2}, and from A_{3} to B_{3} remained exactly the
same, despite any relative motions (velocities) or Einstein’s dubious
rationalizations. In reality, the only
thing that changed was the __perception__ of such distances by the various
observers at the instant of their observation, solely because of: 1) their changed __positions__ (distances)
relative to the observed points as a result of the displacement of the train
relative to the embankment, and 2) the
appropriate distance/time interval delay of *c*.

What was Einstein hoping to accomplish with his contrived concept and
illusion of the Relativity of Distance?
Based on his assertion that “the length of the train as measured from
the embankment may be different from that obtained by measuring the train
itself,” he concluded that the second tacit assumption of classical physics
concerning distance or length was also wrong and must be discarded. In other words, that: “The space interval (distance) between two
points on a rigid body [__is dependant upon__] the condition of motion of
the body of reference,” i.e. the carriage.[61] (*Id*., p. 34) Einstein then claimed:

“This
circumstance leads us to a second objection which must be raised against the
[classical theorem of the addition of velocities]. Namely, if the man in the carriage covers the
distance w in a unit of time—*measured from the train*—then this distance—*as
measured from the embankment*—is not necessarily also equal to w.” [62] (*Id*.,
p. 33)

Thus, continued Einstein, if we drop the two invalid tacit assumptions of classical physics:

“then the
dilemma of [the ‘difficulties’ of the velocity of light] disappears, because
the theorem of the addition of velocities…becomes invalid.[63] The possibility presents itself that the law
of the propagation of light *in vacuo* may be compatible with the
principle of relativity…” (*Id*.,
p. 34)

*c* and his principle of relativity…in other words,
Einstein’s ‘difficulties.’[64] (*Id*., pp. 34 – 37)

But, as we discovered in Chapters 21
and 22, there are no real ‘difficulties’ that need fixing. A ray of light instantly __transmits__ at *c*
relative to its point of emission in space and relative to the medium of a
vacuum (empty space) through which it travels, and it very naturally __propagates__
at velocities (*c* + v or *c* – v) and at time intervals (*c*t –
vt or *c*t + vt) relative to linearly moving material objects which are
approaching it or moving away from it at velocity v. Also, as we discussed in Chapters 23 and 24,
the material principle of Galileo’s Relativity (in any of its many forms) is
irrelevant to the velocity of light at *c*, so that any apparent
disagreement between them is moot.[65] Thus, all of Einstein’s artificial and
contrived concepts of synchronization of clocks, simultaneity, common time, the
proper time of an inertial frame, the Relativity of Simultaneity (duration),
and the Relativity of Distance (length), were concocted and invented for
naught.

In 1913, Einstein published a simple
argument in order to attempt to justify and prove the validity of his
Relativity of Duration (time intervals) and Time Dilation concepts. (Galison, pp. 270 – 271) He imagined that two parallel mirrors located
on a stationary railway carriage, with a light ray propagating to and fro vertically
over the distance (L_{0}) between them, can constitute a clock for an
observer on the carriage, where one tick (t_{0}) is defined as an
emitted flash of light propagating at *c* perpendicularly from one mirror
and back to the other (a detector). (*Id*.,
p. 271; see Figure 26.6A)

Then, stated Einstein, suppose that
the railway carriage moves to the right at velocity v. Observer S' traveling with the light clock on
the moving carriage continues to properly measure the length of the clock to be
L_{0} (and its time interval of light propagation to be t_{0})
because observer S' and the light clock remain relatively stationary. But for the stationary observer S on the
embankment, the up and down propagation of the light pulses now form a saw
tooth pattern in the direction of the motion.
This inclined trajectory of each light flash for S is obviously longer
than the perpendicular trajectory as seen by S'. (Figure 26.6B) Because of Einstein’s second postulate that
the velocity of light is the same in every inertial reference frame, the angled
trajectory of light must also propagate at *c*. (*Id*.

Einstein then rationalized that,
since the light flashes have a greater distance along an inclined path L than
it does along the perpendicular path L_{0}, each tick of the moving
light clock must take a longer time interval to occur than when the light clock
was stationary. Thus, S must conclude
that the moving light clock runs more slowly than when it is stationary, and
that everything else in the moving carriage frame occurs more slowly than when
stationary. (*Id*.

Many well-known followers of
Einstein, including Resnick, Feynman, Cropper and French also use the same
argument and similar illustrations to attempt to confirm that time is a
relative concept, that its quantity depends upon relative motion, and that Time
Dilation is a real physical phenomenon.
(see Resnick, 1992, pp. 470 – 471; Feynman, 1963, pp. 15-5, 15-6;
Cropper, pp. 209 – 211; French, pp. 106 – 107)
All of these relativists also attempt to justify these conclusions with
algebraic equations. But it turns out
that such arguments, illustrations and algebraic proofs are just highly
contrived *ad hoc* illusions based on false assumptions and fool’s logic,
for the following reasons:

1. Einstein’s light clock
experiment was really nothing more than what Michelson falsely assumed would
happen in his 1881 and 1887 __ether__ experiments, vis. that a light ray
would propagate a greater distance in the direction of motion of the apparatus. (see Figures 9.2 and 9.5) As French acknowledged: the idealized light clock “bears more than a
passing resemblance to one arm [the longitudinal arm or the transverse arm] of
a Michelson interferometer” in motion.[66] (French, p. 106, footnote)

2. The longer inclined or angled path of such light flashes was only a visual illusion[67] and a false assumption. (Figure 9.5) A light flash which is perpendicular to the direction of motion of the carriage does not have lateral inertia. (see Chapter 9)

3. Even if the railway carriage and the light clock traveled at 200 km/h, the light paths of such light flashes would not empirically or detectably vary from the perpendicular nor produce Einstein’s desired illusion.

4.
The only way that the illusion of Figure 26.6B could ever
__theoretically__ happen would be if the railway carriage was moving at more
than twice the velocity of light (about 700,000 km/s), which according to
Einstein is impossible.

5.
Einstein needed to create a visual __expansion of distance__ of the
propagating light ray because of relative motion (Figure 26.6B) in order
to obtain a theoretical expansion or Dilation of Time. However, this expansion of distance results
in an internal contradiction for his Special Theory. Distance in Einstein’s Special Theory is
supposed to __contract__ in the direction of motion.

6. The algebraic proofs for Time Dilation are a result of fool’s logic and are highly contrived to obtain the desired result.

7.
There is NO empirical evidence upon which to base Einstein’s moving
light clock thought experiment, or that either the Relativity of Time or Time
Dilation actually exist. They are
completely *ad hoc* concepts.[68]

The above relativists (and many
others) also used another version of Einstein’s moving light clock thought
experiment in order to argue and attempt to prove that Einstein’s concept of
the Relativity of Distance and Length Contraction were real physical
phenomena. Suppose that observer S'
turns the light clock sideways so that the light propagates to and fro
horizontally in the direction of motion of the train. (see Figure 26.6C) When the train is stationary observer S'
measures the length of the light clock to be L_{0} because the light
propagates from the light source to the mirror and back to the detector over
the same distance L_{0} in both directions during a time interval T_{0}. (see Resnick, 1992, pp. 471 – 472) S on the stationary embankment watches the
stationary light clock operate for a while.

When the train moves at velocity v
to the right, S' continues to properly measure the length of the light clock to
be L_{0} because S' and his clock remain relatively stationary. But observer S on the embankment measures the
light ray to move a greater distance in the light clock in the direction of
motion because of the motion of the train relative to her. (see Figure 26.6D) Therefore, when S adds the time intervals for
the light ray to propagate from position 1 to position 2, plus the __additional
theoretical time__ for the light ray to catch up to the moving mirror, plus
the time for the light ray to return from position 2 to position 1 (see Figure 26.6D3), she
must conclude that the light clock has physically __contracted in length__
in the direction of its relative motion, because light must propagate at *c* during the same time and distance intervals
for both observers in S' and the moving light clock and for S on the relatively
stationary embankment.[69]

Many of the same followers of
Einstein use the above argument and similar illustrations to attempt to confirm
that the Relativity of Distance (length) and Length Contraction are real physical
phenomena. (see Resnick, 1992, pp. 471 –
472; Cropper, pp. 211 – 213; French, pp. 107 – 109) Such relativists also attempt to mathematically
confirm these conclusions with algebraic equations. But, again, it turns out that such arguments,
illustrations and algebraic proofs are just highly contrived *ad hoc*
illusions based on false assumptions and fool’s logic, for the following
reasons:

1.
Again, this version of Einstein’s moving light clock experiment was
nothing more than what Michelson falsely assumed would happen in his 1881 and 1887
ether experiments. (see Figures 9.2 and 9.5) Michelson assumed that the longitudinal
mirror would displace from stationary ether so that the longitudinal light ray
would have a __greater distance__ to propagate in his apparatus in the
direction of motion. (see Chapter 9; Figure 26.2) Einstein made a similar assumption in his
moving light clock experiment.

2. But, as we have repeatedly demonstrated, neither mirror in Michelson’s experiments displaced from the light source nor from the tip of the propagating light ray, therefore there was no greater distance for light to propagate to and fro between such relatively stationary mirrors, regardless of the assumed motion of the apparatus through space. (see Chapter 12)

3. Likewise, there would be no greater distance for light flashes to propagate to and fro between relatively stationary mirrors in Einstein’s linearly moving light clock experiment. Thus, this version of Einstein’s light clock thought experiment was also based upon a false premise, and its theoretical results could not happen.

4.
Even if the train and the light clock were moving at 200 km/h, such visual
illusion could not be perceived by S. In
order to even __theoretically__ produce the illusion shown in Figure 26.6D, the train
would have to travel at a speed greatly in excess of twice the velocity of
light, which Einstein asserts cannot happen.

5.
If there was an actual contraction of the distance in the direction of
motion this would *a priori* mean that there was also a reciprocal
contraction of the relevant time interval (which should be a self-contradiction
to Special Relativity).[70] In Einstein’s Special Theory time intervals
are supposed to expand.

6. The algebraic manipulations and ‘proofs’ for length contraction are a result of fool’s logic and are highly contrived to obtain the desired result.

7.
The final equation for such Length Contraction (L = L_{0}
√1 – v^{2}/*c*^{2}) was the “same equation that
Lorentz had concluded earlier was necessary to account for Michelson and
Morley’s null result.” (Cropper, p.
213) But such conclusion was based upon
non-existent ether, so it was *ad hoc* and meaningless.

8.
Resnick acknowledged that “No actual shrinkage is implied” from such
arguments, illustrations and algebraic proofs.
(Resnick, 1992, p. 472) There is
“merely a difference in measured results, just as two observers in relative
motion measure a different frequency for the same source of sound (the Doppler
effect).”[71] (*Id*.

9.
There is no empirical evidence upon which to base such version of
Einstein’s moving light clock thought experiment, or that either the Relativity
of Length or Length Contraction actually exists. They are completely *ad hoc* concepts.[72]

In 1914, Einstein asserted that:

“the simultaneity of two events is not absolute, but
instead can only be defined relative to one observer of a given state of
motion. It turns out that two events
which are simultaneous with respect to one observer are, in general, not
simultaneous with respect to a second observer who is moving relative to the
first one. This signifies a __fundamental
change__ in our concept of time.”
(Einstein, 1914 [Collected Papers, Vol. 6, p. 4])

Einstein’s bogus moving light clock experiments were in part an attempt to prove the above patently false empirical conclusions.

Inconsistently with his Special Theory, Einstein was forced to adopt an expansion of distance because of relative motion in order to obtain a false illusion of an expansion of time, and reciprocally he was forced to adopt a contraction of time because of relative motion in order to obtain a false illusion of a contraction of distance. It is difficult to believe that Einstein, and the intelligent mathematicians who attempted to confirm Einstein’s absurd empirical arguments, did not know exactly what was going on when they attempted to justify such arguments with their bogus geometrical illustrations and their illogical algebraic proofs.[73] Is a false scientific agenda worth the price?

The greater lessons to be learned
from Einstein’s moving light clock thought experiments in particular, and
Special Relativity in general, are that anyone can demonstrate and confirm __anything__
by thought experiments, illogical interpretations, false analogies, topology and
mathematics. But this does not make them
physically or empirically true. One
should not blindly trust mathematics or mathematical physicists, especially
those with a highly speculative pseudo-scientific agenda to advance.

**E.
Relative motion of reference frames is not necessary for different
perceptions of time intervals and distances.**

A
human observer’s perception of his personal local time for a distant light
event depends __solely__ upon the __distance interval__ and/or the __time
interval__ between the __position__ of the light event at the instant of
emission, and the __position__ of the observer at the instant of such perception…and
the appropriate distance/time interval delay of *c*. __No relative motion or velocity is
necessary__. (see Figure 26.7) Any motion of the light event relative to the
observer, or vice-versa, merely serves to __change their relative positions__
at the instant of light emission and/or at the instant of the perception
thereof. (Figures 26.3, 26.5 & 26.7)

In fact, as Figure 26.8 further
demonstrates, an observer’s personal perceptions of actual distant
simultaneity, of distant apparent simultaneity, of non-simultaneity or of
different distance/time intervals can occur where __all__ events and __all__
observers share the __same common motion__, vis. they are all relatively
stationary and at rest on the surface of the moving Earth. In other words, where there is __no relative
motion__ whatsoever.

Einstein’s requirement that any relative
motion must be inertial (uniform) and along the same parallel x-x' axis
(Einstein, 1905d [Dover, 1952, p. 41]) was mainly to facilitate his algebra and
his coordinate measurements. Actually,
the __method__ by which a light event and an observer (with or without his
synchronized clocks) get to their __relative positions__ at the instant of
emission and at the instant of perception is totally irrelevant. The method may be by uniform inertial motion,
accelerated motion, arbitrary motion, slow motion, fast motion, curved
motion…or __no motion__ at all. (see Figure 26.8 and Chapter
22D)

As demonstrated by Figures
26.3, 26.5, 26.7 and 26.8, all of Einstein’s
invalid claims relating to the Relativity of Simultaneity and the Relativity of
Distance depend solely upon coordinates and reference frames, upon his
artificial definitions and axioms, upon the distance/time interval delay of the
constant __finite__ transmission velocity of light at *c*,[74]
and upon the time and distance __perceptions__ of human observers located at
different __positions__ (distances) relative to a distant light event, upon
mathematics, and upon his absurd methods of measurement—nothing more. In reality, the empirical concepts of simultaneity
and relative motion *per se* had
nothing to do with Einstein’s relativistic concepts.

_______________ _{o} _______________

Einstein’s twin
concepts of the Relativity of Simultaneity and of the Relativity of distance
(length) are perhaps the most important concepts contained in his entire
Special Theory. With such twin concepts
he __must__ logically __convince__ the reader that: 1) the magnitude of time intervals and the
magnitude of distance intervals on two inertially moving bodies are physically
and empirically __dependent__ upon the magnitude of the relative velocity
between such two moving bodies, and that therefore 2) the Galilean transformation equations
(with their classical addition of velocities) are incorrect and must be __replaced__
with a new set of transformation equations and with a new set of addition of
velocities.

Unless the reader
is totally convinced by Einstein’s thought experiments and arguments contained
in this chapter that both of such twin concepts are empirically valid and
leaves this chapter with the firm belief that the above changes to classical
physics absolutely must be made, then there was __no physical or empirical
justification__ for Einstein to proceed any further with his Special
Theory. Nor was there any empirical
justification for Einstein to proceed to invent his radical Lorentz
transformations (Chapter 27), to invent his relativistic concepts of Length
Contraction and Time Dilation (Chapter 28), or to invent his relativistic
theorem for the Composition of Velocities (Chapter 29). Without such empirical justifications all of
such relativistic concepts and all of the mathematical consequences that flow
from them, including *inter alia* the
relativistic Doppler effect (Chapter 30), the increase of mass with the
increase of relative velocity (Chapter 31), E = m*c*^{2} (Chapter 32), and Spacetime (Chapter 33), are the
meaningless products of Einstein’s *ad hoc*
imagination.

Einstein’s above examples, illusions, rationales, and conclusions
concerning the relativity of time intervals and lengths were so transparently
illogical and incorrect that one questions whether he really understood what he
was asserting…or whether Einstein was just assuming that all of his readers
would be confused or have less than average intelligence. For all of the reasons contained in this chapter,
Einstein’s twin concepts of the Relativity of Simultaneity and the Relativity
of distance are totally *ad hoc*, contrived and empirically invalid. They are meaningless for any purpose, and
especially as a justification for changing the Galilean transformations into
the Lorentz transformations.

[1] Rohrlich’s ‘space-time’ illustrations in Figure 25.7 are good examples of these artificial and distorted mathematical ‘measurements.’

[2] The reader will note that in these last two paragraphs we have necessarily been commingling several different concepts of simultaneity.

[3] Such
theoretical clock time and coordinate measurements would very naturally depend
upon changing __distance intervals__ (vt) and changing __clock time
intervals__, and upon the direction of such changes. (see Figure 27.1)

[4]
Throughout his Special Theory, Einstein commingled empirical concepts with
abstract mathematical concepts without informing the reader of the
difference. Both this commingling and
such failure to inform were most likely intentional __deceptions__, which
Einstein needed in order to concoct his Special Theory.

[5] In other
words, Einstein’s false and *ad hoc* assumption: that the __quantities__ of all physical
phenomena are dependent upon their __relative velocity__. (see Resnick, 1968, pp. 52, 53) The major basis for this general false
assumption was Einstein’s false conclusion that the velocity of light at *c* seemed to change to *c* ± v because of the relative linear
velocity of a material object toward which it was propagating. (Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 22 – 23)

[6] Einstein
needed both of these equations as stationary benchmarks so that he could later
compare what happens to velocity *c*
when light is propagated relative to a (non-stationary) linearly moving
material body (i.e. *c* ± v)

[7] Be
forewarned. This thought experiment is
probably the most confusing and convoluted one that Einstein ever
imagined. We will attempt to simplify it
somewhat. It is also totally __empirically
invalid__.

[8] In Figure 26.1, which illustrates Einstein’s thought experiment with a low velocity v for S', the points of origin of S and S' are shown at distance coordinate 2 for purposes of clarity.

[9] Einstein called this measurement “the length of the rod in the moving system,” and he determined that it “must be equal to the length L of the stationary rod” measured in System S. (Einstein, 1905d [Dover, 1952, pp. 41 – 42])

[10] Here Einstein was conjecturing that a spherical body has two different physical shapes: a ‘geometrical’ shape (spherical) when at rest, and a ‘kinematical’ shape (contracted and distorted in the direction of motion). (see Miller, pp. 191, 210)

[11] The answer to this question will become relevant and very important in the next Chapter 27.

[13]
According to Einstein, clock time interval t_{B} – t_{A} is
greater than clock time interval t'_{A} – t_{B}, because
theoretically the distance for light ray 1 to propagate is greater in the
direction of motion. (see Figure 26.1) This is the same false assumption that
Michelson applied in his 1881 and 1887 experiments. (Chapter 9)

[14] When
the velocity of the moving rod M is theoretically increased to 50% of *c*, these interpretations and false
assumptions become much more obvious.
(see Figure 26.2)

[15] As we
see from Figure 26.1,
the reflection of light ray 1 theoretically occurs at point B' (not at point
B), so we must revise clock time t_{B} to become clock time t_{B}'
opposite point B'. Likewise, light ray 2
theoretically returns (not to point A but rather) to point A', so we must
revise clock time t'_{A} to occur at clock time t'_{A}'
opposite point A'.

[16] Assuming that Figure 26.1 correctly
illustrates Einstein’s thought experiment, then the reason for the disparity of
all such time intervals should be obvious.
All four clocks remain synchronous, but all of the measured time
intervals between light events are different because the __theoretical
distances__ of such light propagation are all different. However, these false assumptions are all
based on the M & M experiments and their __false premise__ that light
propagates a greater distance and a greater time interval in the direction of
motion. (see Chapter 9)

[17] Very
importantly, what actually occurs in both systems (S and S') is that the light
rays propagate from light source to mirror and back over the __same finite
distances__ (AB and BA) and during the __same time intervals__, because
each light source and each mirror is __relatively stationary__. (see Chapter 12) Therefore, there was no lack of simultaneity
(in Einstein’s sense) or lack of equivalence of time intervals for light
propagation between S and S'. We will
soon explain all of the reasons for these conclusions.

[18]
Remember that Einstein’s mathematical concept of simultaneity with respect to
clocks and events only means that the hands of the synchronous clocks are all
simultaneously pointing to the same clock number at the instant the event
occurs. But such concept has nothing to
do with the __perceptions__ of simultaneity by a human observer.

[19] Jammer
concluded that: “Einstein’s proof of the
relativity of simultaneity [in § 2 of his 1905 Special Theory] is the first
ever __rigorous proof__ of the relativity of a physical concept.” (Jammer, 2006, p. 116) But, of course, it is not when one correctly
analyzes the situation, as we shall do later in this section.

[20] This conclusion will become much more obvious in the next Section 26B.

[21] Also see Figure 26.2, which illustrates Einstein’s theoretical mistake much more vividly.

[22] Einstein’s false ‘proof’ of the Relativity of Simultaneity was very similar to his ‘moving light clock’ experiment and its so-called confirmation of Time Dilation. (see Chapter 26D and Figure 26.6)

[23] In the M & M experiment the longitudinal mirror was theoretically displacing from stationary ether. That theoretical displacement from stationary ether is what Figures 26.1 and 26.2 illustrate.

[24]
Nevertheless, Einstein’s thought experiment in § 2 of his June 1905d treatise
remains the major theoretical and deductive ‘proof’ that such physical
phenomena are __velocity dependent__.

[25] Since
Einstein’s § 2 is completely *ad hoc*
and totally invalid for the aforementioned reasons, there remains no
theoretical justification or convincing rationale for such substitution of the
Lorentz transformations, nor for the theory that magnitudes of time and length
are velocity dependent.

[26] Jammer
further claimed that: “Simultaneity is
no longer a binary relation between two events, as in Newtonian or classical
physics, but a __ternary relation__ depending also on the coordinate-frame
involved.” (Jammer, 2006, p. 116) The word “ternary’ means ‘threefold.’

[27] In fact, as we shall soon see, this 1916 concept could have been called the ‘Relativity of Duration’ (time intervals), rather than the ‘Relativity of Simultaneity.’

[28] Jammer pointed out that when observer M saw the two flashes at the same instant from the two mirrors inclined at 90º, this resulted in “a reduction of distant simultaneity to local simultaneity…” (Jammer, 2006, p. 131) However, it was empirical simultaneity, not mathematical simultaneity.

[29] Therefore the flash at A was also simultaneous for A', and the flash at B was also simultaneous for B'.

[30]
Einstein also acknowledged that if the observer on the train at M_{1}
had not possessed such velocity v but rather had remained permanently at a __position__
corresponding to M, then “the rays of light emitted by the flashes of
lightening A and B would reach him simultaneously.” (Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 30)

[31] Where M
on the carriage changes her position (distance) relative to a light event __by
any method__ and at any velocity, she will perceive such light event at a
different instant in time than if she did not change her position
(distance)…solely because of the different distance/time interval delay of *c*.

[32] This
concept is ‘reference-body’ dependent, not necessarily velocity dependent. Einstein is, of course, assuming that the
observers on the train (A_{1} and M_{1}) in his example have a
low I.Q. and will not factor the motion (change of position) of the train
toward B into their conclusions.

[33] This, of course, is a non sequitur. Resnick attempted to bolster this strained conclusion by Einstein with a highly contrived yet unconvincing example. (see Figure 26.4)

[34] Here Einstein is referring to Lorentz’s April 1904 concept of ‘modified local time,’ and his own copycat concept of a ‘common time’ for each inertial reference system. This assertion by Einstein demonstrates another reason why he needed to invent a unique ‘common time’ for every inertial reference frame, rather than a unique time for every inertial observer.

[35] In
effect, Einstein is claiming that every inertial system (the train or the
embankment) no matter how large it is has its own ‘particular time,’ ‘common
time’ and ‘proper time’ for all of the spatially separated observers and events
located thereon (see Chapter 25); rather than the correct empirical concept
that every human __observer__ his own unique time of perception at his own
unique position relative to a distant light event. With the correct concept, neither the train
nor the embankment is required as reference a body. The only __reference event__ is each
lightning flash.

[36] The valid tacit assumption of empirical physics, that the time interval between two light events does not depend upon the velocity of any reference body, does not require any concept of simultaneity, either absolute or relative, or any significance for the concept of simultaneity (especially not Einstein’s concept).

[37] Nor is there a ‘proper time of the system’ for each inertially moving body (reference frame) as a whole. Material bodies and reference frames don’t observe anything; only spatially separated human observers situated on such material bodies and reference frames perceive instants, time intervals, and light events.

[38] It
might be true that ‘__coordinate__ simultaneity’ depends on the reference
frame (the relative velocity and distortion of coordinates), but this concept
is only meaningful to pure mathematicians.
It has no empirical validity for physics or for a human observer.

[39] Now we have at least five major reasons why Einstein’s Relativity of Simultaneity is not empirically valid: the artificial synchronous time of events on an inertial frame, the fact that relative velocity is for a human observer irrelevant to empirical simultaneity, Einstein’s invalid ether based thought experiment (Chapter 26A), the irrelevance of coordinate simultaneity for a human observer, and Einstein’s absolute and empirically invalid second postulate.

[40] The only thing that Minkowski’s space-time diagrams of Special Relativity really demonstrate is that they are consistently empirically invalid. (see Chapter 30)

[41] Also see Figures 26.7 and 26.8.

[42] One
might logically ask: What happens to the
__portion__ of the second that is __lost__ in this process? What is the physical mechanism for this
process? In Chapter 28 we shall be
disappointed to discover that this Time Dilation concept only results from
Einstein’s dubious method of measuring coordinates.

[43]
Einstein used his concept of the Relativity of Simultaneity (the slowing down
of eternity or Duration) __to justify__ adopting the Lorentz transformation
equations for time (Chapter 27) that in turn mathematically produced this
dilation (slowing down) of time concept, which (in classical circular fashion)
mathematically confirmed his concept of the Relativity of Simultaneity. (Chapter 28)
But if the Relativity of Simultaneity is not empirically valid, then
neither are the Lorentz transformations for time, nor is Einstein’s circular
concept of Time Dilation based thereon.

[44]
Actually the tacit absolute assumption in physics was that t' = t. In other words, the instant of distant light
emission was the same instant as the local perception thereof. The __motion__ of a body of reference had
nothing to do with such misassumption.

[45] Neither
Einstein’s contrived thought experiment concerning simultaneous lightning
flashes, nor his dubious conclusions based thereon, is “the most natural
definition of simultaneity.” Einstein’s
artificial and mathematical examples of simultaneity and the Relativity of
Simultaneity are completely __incompatible__ with empirical simultaneity,
which is really the most natural definition of simultaneity.

[46] All of
the above illogical conjectures concerning the Relativity of Simultaneity
(Duration) constitute Einstein’s so-called proof that the phenomenon and
quantity of __time is velocity dependent__.

[47]
Remember that Einstein’s “difficulty” was:
How could light be “propagated relative to the [stationary] embankment
with the velocity *c*,” but with respect to the linearly moving carriage
it was *c* – v, “smaller than *c*.” (Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 22,
23) In effect, Einstein now claimed that
this so-called ‘difficulty’ resulted from the above tacit assumption of
classical physics: that the duration of
time intervals (eternity) was independent of motion (relative velocity).

[48] Here
Einstein is claiming that the “duration” (the elapsed time interval of
occurrence) of one second in the moving carriage is not equal in ‘duration’ to
(the elapsed time interval of occurrence) of one second on the stationary
railway embankment. But in fact, all he had really demonstrated was that the
personal __perception__ of his definition of simultaneity (duration) was __different__
in the moving train than on the stationary railway embankment, and therefore
the perception of his definition of simultaneity was __relative__ for all
observers. Why was the perception of
simultaneity different? Because of the
relative positions (distances) of distant light events and observers at the
instants of emission and observation, and the distance/time interval delay of *c* relative to each different
position. But __not__ because of any
relative velocity or relative motion involved, *per se*.

[49] This ‘Contraction of Length’ concept was also a mathematical consequence of Einstein’s Lorentz transformation equations for distance (Chapters 27 & 28), which Lorentz transformation equations were in turn theoretically justified by Einstein’s invalid Relativity of Distance concept that we will discuss in the next section of this chapter. Yes, more circular reasoning.

[50] Here Einstein is probably referring to distorted ‘coordinate time,’ but he fails to inform the reader of this fact.

[51] Thus, Einstein is attempting to assert and confirm one spurious empirical concept (the Relativity of Distance) with the assertion of another spurious empirical concept (the Relativity of Duration).

[52] It is
obvious from the above discussion that Einstein needed this concept of the
“Relativity of Duration” in order to justify his modification to the Galilean
transformation equation for time, and so that he could then claim that the
Lorentz transformation equation for dilation of time and his Special Theory
were the mathematical ‘solution’ for the ‘difficulties’ concerning the velocity
of light, as well as the explanation for the M & M null result. (Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 59 –
60) But, as we have already explained in
Chapters 19 through 22, there never were any ‘difficulties’ or ‘conflicts’ that
needed fixing by Einstein’s strained logic and by his two invalid fundamental
postulates. Thus, Einstein was
attempting to solve a non-existent problem with a contrived and invalid solution: his Special Theory.

[53] We will also see in Chapter 27 that Einstein’s attempts to justify substituting his Lorentz transformation equations for the Galilean transformation equations, based on these invalid assertions concerning eternity (vis. the unequal duration of the same time intervals because of relative motion), were equally without merit.

[54] Again, there were no empirical reasons for classical physicists not to tacitly assume these facts.

[55] This
reciprocal concept also follows from Einstein’s twin concept, the Relativity of
Simultaneity (Duration). (see Chapter
26B) It is the theoretical foundation
and attempted justification for adopting and substituting his Lorentz transformation
equation for distance, x' = x – vt/√ 1 – v^{2}/*c*^{2},
which theoretically and mathematically (with arbitrary interpretations) results
in the coordinate ‘contraction of length’ of a body. (Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 40, 41;
Chapter 28)

[56]
Remember that Einstein merely __implied__ this concept of the Relativity of
Distance in § 2 of his 1905 treatise, during his discussion of his concept of
the Relativity of Simultaneity.
(Einstein, 1905d [Dover, 1952, pp. 41 – 42]; see Chapter 26A)

[57] If the
measurement had been made by the observer standing at position A on the railway
embankment, point A_{1} would have been measured to correspond with
point A (because there is no substantial distance/time interval delay of *c*
for this measurement). However, point B_{1}
would have been measured by A to correspond with point B_{3 }because B_{1}
is farther away from A, and by the time she sees it B_{1} has moved to
position B_{2}. The distance
from A to B_{2} is obviously a __longer__ measured distance than
from A_{1} to B_{1}. If
this distance from A to B_{2} is longer, then how could the duration of
time on the moving train be __shorter__?
The distance is shorter or longer depending upon whether A is making the
measurement or B is. Is this not a
contradiction to Einstein’s hypothesis of the Relativity of Duration? How could the Lorentz transformation and its
theoretically contracted length apply to this situation? In reality, if the observer at position M on
the embankment had made the measurements, they would have been between A and A_{3},
and between B and B_{3} (because of the different distance/time
interval delay of *c *for M), which is the __same distance__ that M_{1}
would measure from A_{1} to B_{1} on the moving train. Such are the __illusions__ and fuzzy logic
of Einstein twin concepts and his system of measurement.

[58] The
same perception and measurement would have been made by B if point A had been
moved to point A_{2} prior to the motion of the train and prior to B’s
measurement.

[59] This is yet another example of Einstein switching back and forth between empirical measurements by human observers and mathematical measurements by measurers (i.e. the points on the embankment) in order to fool the reader and achieve his spurious relativistic agenda.

[60] In
effect, Einstein was asserting that the perception of distance is not caused by
the changed position of the observer relative to the event, but rather by relative
motion. But since relative motion merely
means the relative changes of positions over time, what is the difference? He thereafter used this misleading
characterization and the illogical conclusion that he drew from it as the basis
for adopting his Lorentz contraction of distance concept. (Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 40, 41)

[61] All of
these illogical and unconvincing conjectures concerning the Relativity of
Distance constitute Einstein’s so-called proof that distance or __length is
velocity dependent__.

[62]
Einstein described a similar objection to the addition of velocities at the end
of his chapter on the Relativity of Simultaneity (Duration). (Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 31)

[63] This spurious assertion may be considered as a theoretical basis for Einstein’s ‘relativistic theorem for the addition of velocities.’ In Chapter 29 we will discuss Einstein’s invalid ‘relativistic composition of velocities’ and why it is meaningless.

[64] Since Einstein’s classical addition of velocities is embedded in the Galilean transformation equations for distance, x = x – vt and x' = x + vt, this would automatically require a modification of the Galilean transformation equations for distance.

[65] This also means that Einstein’s first fundamental postulate of relativity is meaningless and moot.

[66] It is
obvious that Michelson’s, Maxwell’s and Lorentz’s false ether assumptions of a __greater
distance__ for light to propagate in the direction of motion, and Michelson’s
1887 illustration of light propagating in an __angled__ path, was the source
for Einstein’s absurd moving light clock argument in favor of Time
Dilation. (see Chapter 9 and Figures 9.2 and 9.5)

[67] Remember the visual illusion that was created when Einstein dropped a stone ‘straight down’ from a moving train, but the stone’s inertia actually caused it to fall in a parabolic motion. (see Figure 3.5; Chapter 3B)

[68] The paradoxical slower decay than expected of muons that enter our atmosphere at high speeds is not a result of Time Dilation. (see Chapter 37)

[69] When observer S' on the moving train heard of the observations of S, theoretically he would also have to come to the same conclusion.

[70] The
relativists needed to create a theoretical __contraction of time__ in order
to obtain the desired contraction of matter result, but this unwelcome
companion result should be a self-contradiction to their arguments.

[71] But, of
course, there is a big difference between such changing frequencies of sound
and the theoretical relativistic contractions of matter. With the Doppler effect of sound there is a
valid __physical__ reason for such changing frequencies (see Figure 8.3), but there
is no valid physical reason for Einstein’s contraction of matter. Therefore, Resnick’s analogy was completely
false and meaningless.

[72] The only theoretical basis for such contraction was Fitzgerald’s, Lorentz’s and Einstein’s bogus contraction explanations for the M & M null result, and we now know that the real reasons for such paradoxical null results do not include a contraction. (see Chapter 12)

[73] As French acknowledged: “the above [moving light clock] analysis is, of course, no more than a description, in terms of a concrete example, of the Lorentz transformations as they apply to time and length measurements.” (French, p. 109) This statement shows that the mathematicians were just attempting by any means necessary (no matter how contrived or illogical) to justify adopting the Lorentz transformations. Are these attempts science or pseudo-science?

[74] Einstein could not have made any of his bizarre claims regarding a nexus between variable durations and relative motion, if the light signal was instantaneous.