**GENERAL
INTRODUCTION **

This treatise is, in general, a story of the evolution of two physical
concepts…the constant transmission velocity of light and the varying motions of
matter. It is also a fascinating story
of the scientific confusion that evolved from trying to relate these two very
different phenomena, which ultimately resulted in Einstein’s Special Theory of
Relativity and other mathematical theories.
Such confusion was then greatly enhanced and proliferated by Special
Relativity, and it continues to this day.

The first 17 chapters, which comprise Part I of this treatise, provide an
in depth discussion of certain relevant aspects of that which is now called
‘classical physics.’ They also reveal
and explain many previously unknown revelations with respect to classical
physics. Three themes play a major role
during this preliminary discussion.
First, there was the development of the principles of mechanics (matter
in motion), and the difficulties and paradoxes that were encountered in trying
to __reconcile__ the new and very different phenomena of electromagnetism to
such mechanical principles. Secondly,
there was the mythical substance of __ether__ that theoretically permeated
all of space, and which was invented in a misguided attempt to understand and
explain the mysteries of electromagnetism.
During the 19^{th} and early 20^{th} centuries, the
theory of ether distorted everything and its mathematical consequences created
many very serious problems and paradoxes for physics.

Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, there were the beginnings of the
continuing myth that __mathematics is invincible__ in physics…and that from
a mathematician’s imagination (i.e. his algebraic formulas and geometrical
illustrations) all of the physical mysteries of nature can be discovered,
understood and confirmed. For example,
imaginative 19^{th} century theories and mathematical formulas
absolutely confirmed that the hypothetical ‘ether’ (and its theoretical
consequences) actually physically existed.
Physicists, mathematicians and the scientific community as a whole
ardently believed in and universally applied the ‘ether theory’ to their
experiments and to their other theories for almost a century. However, it is now known that ‘ether’ was a
complete fiction and that it does not exist.
Nevertheless, its vestiges linger on and continue to distort much of
physics.[1]

One might ask: Why should we spend the time to read and understand 17 chapters which discuss and explain ‘classical physics,’ its problems and its paradoxes, as a prologue to a critical examination of Special Relativity and other mathematical theories? The answer is: for several reasons. First, as Rohrlich points out:

“Both the
special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity are creations
of our present century. One cannot __understand__
these theories fully without some notion of what had gone on before.”[2] (Rohrlich, p. 35)

The same is
true with respect to quantum physics and other mathematical theories. Secondly, because many of the past theories,
concepts, assumptions, interpretations, and experiments which form the
foundations, premises and confirmations for Special Relativity were also *ad
hoc*,[3]
contrived, mistaken and/or empirically invalid.
Thirdly, because such 17 introductory chapters contain numerous
empirical explanations for theoretical paradoxes and physical mysteries that
have never been revealed or explained before.
Finally, because it is impossible to fully understand Part II of this
treatise without reading and understanding Part I.

Part II of this treatise presents an insightful scrutiny, analysis, and discussion
of the concepts of Albert Einstein’s 1905 Special Theory of Relativity, and its
many mathematical consequences. This
discussion discloses and demonstrates in great detail that Einstein’s Special
Theory (like the ‘ether theory’) was based on numerous false premises and
faulty assumptions. It also explains __why__
such Special Theory and its mathematical consequences are almost completely
physically invalid and empirically meaningless.
This second part also demonstrates that, in fact, there are __no__
experimental confirmations of Special Relativity and its consequences, and that
other mathematical theories which purport to confirm Special Relativity and its
mathematical consequences are themselves either highly dubious, unconfirmed or
invalid. Thus, ultimately and
unfortunately, this treatise is also a tale of the misguided triumph of *ad
hoc* and artificial mathematical theories over logic and commonsense; of
scientific agendas over objectivity; and of scientific authority and blind
acceptance over skepticism and scrutiny.

Unfortunately, modern day physics is still cluttered with paradoxes, false assumptions, contradictions, illusions, and fantasies. Gill distinguished a paradox from a contradiction, as follows:

“A paradox must not be confused
with a contradiction; it is a seeming [apparent] contradiction, or a statement
which differs from what we would normally expect, but which, on closer
examination turns out to be true. If a
theory predicts paradoxical results, this is __a stimulus to further thought__,
and calls for clarification and explanation, while if a theory __predicts a
contradiction__ this calls for a __revision__ of the theory. Thus one might say that the role of the
paradox in science is concerned with __teaching__ and understanding while
the role of the contradiction lies in the advancement of science itself.” (Gill, p. 13)

On the other hand, if the explanation of the paradox results in the revision of a theory or a myth, then science is also advanced.

The author postulates that every physical paradox, illusion, or myth has a logical empirical explanation. In this regard, Gill stated:

“While it is now axiomatic that
physical theories do not need to conform to ‘commonsense’[4] it
is still a fact that a disagreement with ‘commonsense’ or with our intuitive
ideas of the world, makes __a prima facie case__ for taking a closer and
more critical look at a theory. One
reason for this is that an important element in scientific commonsense is logic,
and a logical contradiction in a theory must sooner or later manifest itself;
in other words, a conflict with commonsense can either be a symptom of a
serious defect in a theory, or merely our reaction to the unfamiliar. The first possibility __must not be ignored__
in our overwhelming enthusiasm for the strange and paradoxical.” (*Id*.,
pp. 13 – 14)

In the author’s opinion, if the explanation of a physical paradox or a physical phenomenon defies logic or commonsense, then such explanation is most likely incorrect.[5]

We shall discover, during our discussions in this treatise, that many commonly accepted theories, physical phenomena, and paradoxes are (or are based upon) false assumptions, illusions, fantasies, and myths. In the chapters to follow, we will attempt to explain many of these baffling paradoxes, illusions and myths and assist the reader in distinguishing fact from fantasy, and reality from illusion.

**A. What is Einstein’s Special Theory of
Relativity in a nutshell?**

In his book entitled ‘*Light*,’ Professor Sobel describes in
very simple and straightforward terms exactly what Einstein was attempting to
achieve with is 1905 Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein began his Special Theory with the
fundamental thesis that the __magnitudes__ or quantities of some physical
phenomena can __vary__ depending upon whether they are stationary or moving
when they are observed or measured.[6] (Sobel, p. 203) Einstein cited three theoretical examples of
this fundamental thesis, none of which is empirically valid.

Einstein’s first example was that “a
__fixed__ electric charge will set up an electric field, but a __moving__
electric charge [a current] will set up __both__ an electric and a magnetic
field.” (Sobel, p. 203) The simple reason for this new quantity (a
magnetic field) is that “an electric current…acts as a magnet.” (*Id*.__not__ depend
upon the relative state of motion of the observer who is measuring this
process.

Einstein’s second example of his
fundamental thesis concerned Maxwell’s law that a light ray always transmits at
the constant velocity of *c* (300,000
km/s) in a vacuum. Einstein claimed that
a ray of light did have a constant velocity of *c* relative to a stationary railway carriage, but relative to a
carriage that was moving at v linearly down a railway track the transmission velocity
of the light ray changed from *c* to *c* – v.
(Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 22
– 23) In other words, Einstein claimed that
Maxwell’s physical law of the constant transmission velocity of light changed solely
because of such relative motion.[7] These critical false premises for Einstein’s entire
Special Theory are discussed in detail in the Preamble to this treatise.

Einstein’s third example of his
fundamental thesis concerned the famous paradoxical null results of the 1887
Michelson and Morley (M & M) experiment.
Einstein claimed that the ‘missing time interval’ of a propagating light
ray in such experiment was fully explained if we assume that the longitudinal
arm in Michelson’s experiment __contracted__ in length in the direction of
the Earth’s solar orbital motion (velocity) around the Sun.[8] (see Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 58 – 60)
Einstein’s contraction theory supposedly explained the paradox and saved
Maxwell’s law concerning the constant transmission velocity of light at *c* in a vacuum.[9] (see Chapter 15) On the contrary, we will demonstrate the
three real reasons for the M & M paradox, none of which involve any
contraction of matter. (see Chapters 9 –
12)

Einstein’s second fundamental thesis was that “the laws of physics cannot depend on who is observing them.” (Sobel, p. 203) This simplistic thesis is so obviously correct that it requires no further proof or discussion.

Einstein’s third fundamental thesis was that the laws of physics “must
deal with quantities that do not vary with [velocity]—or the laws must relate
quantities that vary with [velocity] in the same way.”[10] (*Id*.*invariant*.” (*Id*.

This simple goal of Einstein’s Special Theory sounds benign enough. But there were three major and insurmountable
problems: 1) Einstein’s Special Theory
and his simple goal were totally __unnecessary__, because the transmission
velocity of light at *c* in the medium
of a vacuum was already constant and it does not vary (see the Preamble and
Chapters 21 & 22); 2) the ‘relative
velocity’ of a propagating light ray at *c*
± v, which naturally varies with respect to bodies moving linearly at v relative
to the light ray, and which Einstein was attempting to make an invariant, is
neither a law of physics nor a law of nature[12]
(see the Preamble and Chapters 21 & 22); and 3) in order to attempt to achieve his simple
goal, Einstein needed to change or distort *ad
hoc* most of the other laws of physics.
(see Chapters 20G, and 24 through 33)

As can readily been seen from the above discussion,
Einstein’s Special Theory was based upon numerous false premises and *ad hoc* assumptions, and for this reason
alone it is empirically invalid and physically meaningless. (see Memo 1.1) There are also many other reasons for such
conclusions, and they will be demonstrated and explained throughout this
treatise.

As a __mathematical__ theory, which Special Relativity
primarily is, it makes some mathematical sense and is somewhat mathematically
consistent. However, as a __physical__
theory, which Special Relativity is purported to be, it makes no empirical
sense whatsoever, it is completely inconsistent and empirically invalid, and it
contradicts observations, experiments, logic and commonsense.

For all of the reasons set forth above and throughout this
treatise, Special Relativity can best be described in a nutshell as an
artificial mathematical theory which was invented to solve several __non-existent__
problems; but in the process it created a multitude of __real__ problems for
physics and science as a whole.[13] (see Figure 1.2)

**B. What are the differences between empirical
theories and mathematical theories?**

At this early point, let us discuss the general subjects of empirical
theories and mathematical theories for a few moments. A physical theory may either be empirically
claimed to be true (such as

In addition, such prediction must be
‘testable.’ (*Id*.

“[T]he falsification of a theory is, in many ways, even more significant than its verification.” (Bohm, p. 123)

If a new theory or prediction is not testable it must be considered to be meaningless.

If a physical theory is consistently supported by meaningful empirical
data, this may be considered to be an ‘experimental confirmation’ of such
theory.[16] If it is consistently supported by enough
observational and/or experimental confirmation over a sufficiently wide range
of experience, such physical theory may ultimately be __accepted__ as valid
by the scientific community. If it is
accepted for a long enough time by enough of the scientific community, it may
eventually be considered to be an __established law__ of nature. (see Rohrlich, pp. 17 – 19, 111 – 114) “No theory can ever be proven to be correct
in the same sense as a mathematical theorem can be proven. The best that one can expect is to be
convinced of its correctness with overwhelming high probability.” (*Id*.,
p. 17)

How can one tell whether a claimed theory or law of physics is
false? Must one demonstrate that __every__
claimed experimental confirmation of such theory or law is invalid? The answer is No. The skeptic is not held to this almost
impossible burden. It is enough if the
challenger conclusively demonstrates that such claimed theory or law is __contradicted__
in __any__ example of its claimed application (otherwise known as its
‘domain of validity’). (see Rohrlich, p.
18) No matter how long a physical theory
or law has been accepted or established, no matter upon whose authority it is
considered to be valid (i.e. Aristotle or Einstein), no matter how
mathematically ‘beautiful’ it is, or how many supposed experimental
confirmations it may have to its credit, if a physical theory or law is
convincingly contradicted or demonstrated to be invalid in only one situation
or with respect to only one observer, it must either be revised or completely
discarded.

This falsification or disconfirmation process has happened many times
during the history of science. Most of
Aristotle’s once established laws have been conclusively contradicted by
scientists such as Galileo, Kepler,

It is generally agreed that science in general, and physics in
particular, should involve only an “unqualified devotion to the discovery of __truth__…[regardless
of] expectations and tentative assumptions.”[17] (Dingle, 1972, p. 23) This quest should never be qualified nor
compromised by preconception, prejudice or partisanship, nor by personal or
political motive. (*Id*.

“Every physical theory must begin and end in observation…The final test necessarily is comparison with observations; no theory can survive which is not able successfully to stand this test. This truth has sometimes been lost sight of.” (De Sitter, 1932, p. 6)

Indeed, these lofty goals have too often been completely ignored.

During the 17^{th} and 18^{th}
centuries it was realized that hypotheses or theories might assist in the
discovery of new phenomena, and, in turn, existing phenomena became useful
tools for the creation of new theories.[18] Gradually, however, during the early 19^{th}
century, there developed a permissiveness or laxness in the framing of
hypotheses, and by the end of the century imagination, conjecture, speculation
and rationalization was often substituted for experience. (see Dingle, 1972, pp. 26, 27)

“[Scientists
began] imagining how nature ought to behave and then assuming that she does so,
instead of examining nature with an open mind and then expressing her observed
behaviour in rational terms.” (*Id*.,
p. 29)

What made this unscientific process
possible was the unlimited extension of Galileo’s famous statement: “the book of nature is written in the
mathematical language.” Galileo was only
referring to his mathematical description of physical observations related to
his experiments in mechanics; not to mathematical axioms and formulas as an end
in themselves and as a substitute for experiments and experience. (*Id*., p. 30) Nevertheless, this latter philosophy is what
triumphed around the end of the 19^{th} century…first with Fitzgerald,
Lorentz and Poincaré, and then culminating with the mathematical theories of
Einstein between 1905 and 1917.

Unfortunately, mathematics has continued to play this all-comprehensive role in science. It is now even claimed that any mathematically consistent theory is necessarily true, unless it is mathematically impossible. For example, ‘tachyons’ (hypothetical particles that travel faster than light) are mathematically possible, therefore for many mathematical physicists they must physically exist. (see Dingle 1972, pp. 28, 30) The arbitrary axioms of Aristotelian logic have often been exchanged for the arbitrary axioms of mathematics:[19]

“their
implications are developed into extended systems of thought which necessarily
follow from the axioms but may or may not correspond to what can be observed in
nature.” (*Id*., p. 29)

It is now often
assumed “that a physical theory is necessarily sound if its mathematics is
impeccable: the question whether there
is anything in nature corresponding to that impeccable mathematics is not
regarded as a question; it is taken for granted.” (*Id*., p. 30)

Realistically, a mathematical language “is just as capable of expressing
false ideas as true ones. The fact,
therefore, that something can be expressed with rigorous mathematical
exactitude tells you nothing at all about its truth, i.e. about its relation to
nature, or to what we can experience.”
(Dingle, 1972, p. 30) “[W]ithout
in the least rejecting…a *mathematical* solution of the problem, we can
also say…that it is not a possible *physical* solution. Nevertheless, in modern physics [a
mathematical solution] is universally assumed to be [a physical solution], on
the sole ground of its mathematical validity.”[20] (*Id*., p. 33)

“The fact
is…that mathematical truths are far more general than physical truths: that is to say, the symbols that compose a
mathematical expression may, with equal mathematical correctness, correspond
both to that which is observable and that which is purely imaginary or even
unimaginable.[21] If, therefore, we start with a mathematical
expression, and infer that there must be something in nature corresponding to
it, we do in principle just what the pre-scientific philosophers did when they
assumed that nature must obey their axioms.”
(*Id*., pp. 30 – 31)

All of these problems and concerns expressed by Professor Dingle in vis.
1972 book, *Science at the Crossroads*, continue to be real problems and
concerns during the first decade of the twenty-first century. They relate specifically to all of Einstein’s
mathematical theories of relativity, which he invented during the period 1905 –
1917. They also relate to all other
mathematical theories that are in whole or in part predicated upon Einstein’s
relativistic theories, such as quantum mechanics, quantum field theories,
particle physics and superstring theory, to name just a few. The question is thus presented: to what extent are __any__ of these
mathematical theories physically meaningful?

Typically, most current mathematical physical theories, whenever physical
phenomena (imagined by a theorist) can be construed to be __mathematically
true__, such hypothetical physical phenomena will thereafter be 'conjectured'
to physically exist. At this point, a
process is often begun by others to 'confirm' such hypothetical physical
phenomena by any plausible interpretation of available experimental data. This arbitrary and unscientific process, of
course, results in countless invalid and self-fulfilling prophecies.

Once established, these pure mathematical theories, their mathematical
consequences, and the meaningless mathematical ‘physical’ phenomena that they
describe, become the foundations for new mathematical theories, more imagined
mathematical physical phenomena, and further *ad* *hoc* predictions
and ‘confirmations.’ Thus, this
pseudo-scientific cycle endlessly repeats itself. Does such an artificial process serve
physics, science in general, reality or humanity? During the remainder of this treatise we will
analyze and discuss these mathematical theories, and attempt to determine the
answer to this question.

C. Why should anyone care about Special Relativity and other mathematical theories?

The main confusion about Special
Relativity (and about all of Einstein’s relativistic theories for that matter)
stems from the fact that Einstein’s Special Theory is a __dichotomy__. Einstein conceived and wrote it as a __mathematical__
theory, with coordinates, reference frames and algebraic equations. However, he and his followers have generally
interpreted it, promoted it, and attempted to confirm it as an __empirical__
theory that is literally and physically true (which it is not). For these reasons, this treatise will
primarily analyze and critique Einstein’s Special Theory (and other
mathematical theories) from an empirical point of view.

One might ask: Why should anyone in the twenty-first century care about Special Relativity or its related mathematical theories? There are countless reasons why we should care. Because every student of college level physics (and above) is required to study, if not understand, Einstein’s obscure concepts of relativity and their related mathematical theories. Because libraries and bookstores worldwide have shelves upon shelves of books devoted to such relativistic subjects. Because uncountable radio broadcasts, television programs and websites refer to Einstein’s artificial relativistic theories as gospel. A quick search of the Internet at the time of this writing shows over 280,000 sites that specifically relate to Special Relativity and over 435,000 sites that specifically relate to General Relativity. That alone totals over 700,000 websites.

Each year many complicated and expensive experiments are conducted to study, apply, validate or extend Einstein’s theories of relativity and their theoretical consequences, including those involving space launches, satellites, and particle physics. Scientific and other periodicals worldwide annually include more than a modest collection of articles related to Special Relativity, other relativistic theories, and their progeny. In short, a great deal of scientific effort and monetary resources are expended (and possibly wasted) each year on attempts to study, understand, validate, apply, and/or extend the concepts of Special Relativity, and its sister theories.

Physicists factor Einstein’s relativistic concepts into their theories as well as their experiments and other practical work. Relativistic inferences and interpretations affect, contaminate and distort the conclusions drawn from high-energy particle physics experiments, quantum mechanics, rocket science, astronomy, and other scientific disciplines. Much of cosmology is founded on Einstein’s dubious theories of relativity, including the Big Bang and the expanding universe. The meaningless and unsolvable ‘twin paradox’ derived from Special Relativity is the subject of seemingly endless debates. The ubiquitous superstring theory is largely based on Einstein’s theories of relativity, and over 1,000 of our brightest scientists currently work on it, often because string theory is now the only real ticket to a university professorship. (see Smolin, p. xxii) This is only a partial list of the negative impacts of Special Relativity, and its related relativistic mathematical theories.

Do we as a society want to know the realities of matter, motion, time, space, light, atoms, and the cosmos in which we live? Or are we content to be entertained and mystified by false or dubious concepts, myths and science fiction? (see Memo 1.1) Can we afford not to know the truth about the physical and natural laws of the universe?

The general scientific acceptance of
Special Relativity is, however, not without its skeptics and detractors. Most notably, the Nobel Committee for Physics
disapproved of Einstein’s theories of relativity in 1921 and refused to award
him the Nobel Prize for physics for such concepts.[22]
The past president of the Royal Society, Professor Herbert Dingle, has written
an entire book filled with arguments against Special Relativity and other
mathematical theories. (Dingle,
1972) More recently, Serbian physicist

“The public
response to the theory of special relativity and its consequences was, and is,
one of __incredulity__ among both amateurs and professionals.” (Rigden, p. 102)

Professor David Bohm, himself a relativist, also points out that: “…it must not be supposed that relativity is an iron-clad certainty, which should not be questioned…it is, therefore necessary…to apply the theory in a tentative manner, being alert and ready to criticize it, and if necessary to replace it…” (Bohm, p. 109)

Most of the scientific manuscripts that are skeptical or critical of Special

Relativity
concentrate on the mathematical consequences and implications of the theory, or
on its mathematical and technical mistakes.
The *Relativity of Light*, on the other hand, deals primarily with
the foundations of Einstein’s Special Theory:
its false premises and meaningless assumptions, its invalid postulates,
its strained logic, rationalizations and analogies, its conjectures, its
absolute and *ad hoc* concepts, and its false, mistaken or irrelevant
so-called confirmations. If these
fundamental criteria are not correct, then it follows that neither are the
assertions of the Special Theory, its consequences, its implications, and its
theoretical progeny. Special Relativity,
like many other generally invalid theories, has certain minor correct concepts
associated with it. We will attempt to
point out these minor correct concepts as we go along.

There appears to be a strong reluctance on the part of the general public to even consider the subject of Special Relativity. Many people merely assume that the theory (whatever it is) must be correct, because everyone else seems to believe it is, and because the great Einstein created it. For others, the very words, ‘Einstein’ and ‘Relativity,’ send shudders of consternation up and down their spines. Most potential readers assume that Einstein’s relativistic concepts must be very difficult to comprehend, and that his complicated mathematical equations need to be understood. However, neither of these assumptions is correct. Once the reader realizes that Einstein and all of his followers over the decades have made many false assumptions, critical mistakes, and meaningless conclusions, then the subject becomes less intimidating and more of a fascinating mystery: How could all of these great scholars have been so mistaken for so long? [23]

If the reader is the slightest bit skeptical or inquisitive about Special Relativity and the questions of its creation, validity, application, and confirmation, then you are invited to join the author in a fascinating step-by-step examination of the theory, its evolution, and the many unexpected issues, answers, and revelations along the way. Any intelligent and motivated reader, even without any background in physics, can understand this treatise. It is written in plain English with only a few simple (and fully explained) mathematical equations where absolutely necessary. Because this treatise is intended to be read and understood by the lay reader (as well as the scientist), it is light on mathematics and heavy on logical and empirical explanations.[24] All necessary terms and concepts are included, and they are clearly defined and fully explained. There are well over 200 illustrations and charts to assist the reader toward a full understanding of the subject matter. It is suggested that the footnotes as well as the text should be read slowly and thoughtfully, even by Ph.D.’s. All chapters should be read in sequential order, even if the reader thinks he or she already knows the subject matter.

The author has made numerous bold statements in this introduction, for which he may be criticized, however he will continue in the same vein throughout this treatise.[25] Such boldness is not intended to be audacious, rude or arrogant, but rather only to strongly assert the author’s analysis, arguments, convictions, research and empirical confirmations, and to challenge the reader to think about and hopefully to edit or revise (where appropriate) some of the author’s statements. The subject matter is too important to mince words or to try to always be completely ‘politically correct.’

The *Relativity of Light* has been a monumental project for the
author and his small staff during the last 8 years, and it undoubtedly contains
some mistakes, inaccuracies and omissions.
For this reason, the author solicits constructive criticism, critiques,
and insights from the readers.
Especially welcome are suggested changes, additions, and their
authoritative sources (if any). The main
goals of the treatise are to expose and discuss the flaws in existing theories,
experiments and interpretations, while always striving for truth, reality and
better answers. The author and his staff
can be contacted by email: info@relativityoflight.com.

The 42 chapters which comprise this treatise (plus their bibliography) will be added to this website in sequential order as they are edited and rewritten during the calendar year 2009. Please see the Table of Contents for a complete list of chapter titles. An index and certain supplements will be added upon completion.

_________________________ _{o}
_________________________

Note: Most of the author’s bibliography of sources
and much of the text of his source citations and quotations can be found
online, in a good general library or physics library, or for purchase on
Amazon.com. However, it is suggested
that the serious reader should in any event invest a few dollars to purchase
the following indispensable and ubiquitous paperback books which are available
online or in any large book store: 1) *The
Principle of Relativity*, 1952 Edition, Dover Publications, and 2) *Relativity: The Special and the General Theory*, by
Albert Einstein, 1961 Edition, Three Rivers Press.

[1] There are also many other similar examples.

[2] One also
cannot evaluate the validity or invalidity of the __prior classical theories
and experiments__ upon which relativity was premised without knowing the
assumptions, premises, interpretations, inferences, and rationalizations upon
which __they__ were based.

[3]
Throughout this treatise, we shall define the term ‘*ad hoc*’ to
mean: ‘an arbitrary contrivance of the
imagination without any substantial experimental, observational, empirical or
other factual support, justification or confirmation.’

[4] The
primary reason for this axiom is that Einstein’s *ad hoc* and empirically invalid theories of Special Relativity and
General Relativity, which defy both logic and commonsense, are now considered
by the scientific community to be valid.

[5] We will see many examples of this fact throughout the following chapters.

[6] In effect, that such magnitudes or quantities depend upon relative motion.

[7] This example by Einstein is also not valid for the reasons stated in Chapters 21 & 22.

[8] It was
theoretically assumed that there would be no ‘missing time interval’ if
Michelson’s apparatus was __at rest__ in the stationary ether. (see Einstein, Relativity, pp. 58 – 59)

[9] The paradoxical M & M experiment is considered by the scientific community to be the preeminent and most convincing experimental confirmation of Special Relativity. (see Resnick, 1968, p. 37)

[10] There
is no logical or physical reason for these arbitrary requirements. We will demonstrate throughout this treatise
that __no magnitudes of any physical phenomena (including matter or light) vary
with their uniform rectilinear velocities__.

[11] These
last two statements by Sobel have no meaning, because there is no quantity of
any physical phenomena (including light) which varies with its velocity. The transmission velocity of light is always
a constant velocity of *c* (300,000
km/s) in a vacuum. (see the Preamble and
Chapters 21 & 22 for a complete explanation)

[12] It is merely an obvious empirical fact that varies with each specific situation.

[13] The author asserts that it would be almost impossible for anyone with at least average intelligence, who has a reasonably open mind, and who reads and understands all of the chapters of this treatise, to conclude that Einstein’s Special Theory is physically meaningful and empirically valid.

[14] The word ‘empirical’ means as a result of observation or experiment.

[15] In
other words, such “theory must __permit confirmation__ or disconfirmation by
__experiment__ or by __observation__.”
(Rohrlich, p. 17)

[16] On the other hand, if a theory remains speculative and is not confirmed, yet possesses some measure of plausibility, it still can exist as a ‘hypothesis.’ (Dingle, 1972, p. 24)

[17] In addition to theories, observations and experiments, imagination, speculation, intuition, interpretation, inferences, mathematics, skepticism, reason, and persistence can also be instrumental to a scientific search for the truth.

[18] “There are two methods by which science proceeds in the building up of her theories. The one is by generalisation and induction, the other by hypothesis…New observations give birth to new theories and hypotheses, and on the other hand, the development and generalisation of existing theories point out where new observations are required.” (De Sitter, 1932, p. 7)

[19] “[T]he works of Aristotle enjoyed an undisputed authority, and in order to decide whether a theory was true or not, it was compared not with observations but with Aristotle.” (De Sitter, 1932, p. 6) An ‘axiom’ is an authoritative statement which is accepted as true without proof.

[20] The reasonable person must ask the question: In the search for physical truth, how can we allow mathematical symbols to be substituted for facts of physical experience?

[21] For
example: “The mathematical symbol, *x*,
can be positive, negative, integral, fractional, irrational, imaginary,
complex, zero, infinite, and whatever else the fertile brain of the
mathematician may devise.” (*Id*.,
p. 31)

[22] Yet because of much misinformed public outcry, a compromise was struck in 1922 and Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for his theory of the photoelectric effect. (see Ridgen, pp. 100 – 101)

[23] If the reader is skeptical about any claims made in this introduction it is entirely understandable. The proof of the pudding lies before you in the form of reading and understanding each chapter.

[24] Nevertheless, sources of sophisticated equations and technical explanations are also cited throughout for the physicist and mathematician to refer to.

[25] Einstein also made many bold statements throughout his career, but no comparison between Einstein and the author is intended.