**CONTRACTION
THEORIES OF FITZGERALD, LORENTZ AND EINSTEIN**

Fitzgerald (in 1889), Lorentz (in 1895), and later Einstein attempted to explain Michelson’s paradoxical null results with a radical ad hoc hypothesis. The hypothesis was that a material body (i.e. the longitudinal arm of Michelson’s apparatus) physically contracts, or becomes shorter, in the direction of its velocity through the stationary ether. This theoretical contraction of distance could hypothetically explain the missing time interval for light to propagate in the M & M experiments, and therefore could theoretically explain Michelson’s null results. But it turns out that Fitzgerald’s and Lorentz’s two very different mathematical contraction factors were both impossible absolute concepts, and so was Einstein’s similar contraction ‘solution.’

After the null results of the Michelson and Morley experiment were published in 1887, the various theories concerning the interactions between ether, the velocity of light and the motions of matter reached a critical impasse. No single theory could consistently explain the results, implications, contradictions, conflicts and paradoxes of numerous experiments and other theories. (see Chart 15.1) The door appeared to be wide open for someone to attempt to devise a new theory that would resolve all of these problems. (Bergmann, pp. 26 – 27)

**A.
Fitzgerald’s Contraction Theory**

In May 1889, Irish physicist George F. Fitzgerald (1851-1901), largely in an attempt to defend the existence of stationary ether as a fixed reference frame at rest in space, proposed a radical explanation for Michelson’s paradoxical null result in a letter to the editors of Science Newspaper. Such letter states, as follows:

“I have read with much interest Messrs. Michelson and Morley’s
wonderfully delicate experiment attempting to decide the important question as
to how far the __ether is carried along__ by the earth.[1]

“I would suggest that __almost__ the only __hypothesis__ that can
reconcile this [null result] is that __the length of material bodies changes__
[contracts], according as they are moving __through the ether or across it__,
by an amount depending on __the square of the ratio of their velocity to that
of light__.”[2] (Fitzgerald, Science Newspaper, Vol. XIII,
No. 328, 1889, p. 390)

Although
Fitzgerald referred to the 1887 M & M experiment, his contraction
explanation is more applicable to Michelson’s 1881 experiment. In 1881, Michelson was attempting to detect a
fringe shift equal to 10% of a wavelength, which according to Maxwell and
Michelson should require a degree of precision to detect equal to v^{2}/*c*^{2}. Whereas in 1887, Michelson was attempting to
detect an even smaller fringe shift equal to only 4% of a wavelength, which
might require an even greater degree of precision to detect. (Chapter 9)
The __magnitude__ of contraction that Fitzgerald was conjecturing was
equivalent to v^{2}/*c*^{2} at v = 30 km/s. This was the same ratio of magnitude that
Maxwell suggested in his 1879 letter for a theoretical increase in the time
interval of propagating light, and which Michelson was attempting to detect in
his 1881 experiment.

In effect,
Fitzgerald hypothesized that if the length of every material object (i.e. the
Earth) physically ‘contracts’ or becomes shorter in the absolute direction of
its absolute motion through the stationary ether, then every observer sharing
the same motion of the shortened Earth (including Michelson, Morley, and the
longitudinal arm of their apparatus) would also proportionally physically
contract.[3] (Born, pp. 219, 220) According to Fitzgerald, these physical
contractions of distance would in turn proportionally __reduce the time
interval__ which light had to propagate at its transmission velocity of *c*
to and fro along the __linearly contracted__ longitudinal arm of the
apparatus, and in the direction of the Earth’s solar orbital velocity. (see Figures 15.2 and 15.3) *A priori*, the amount of this
conjectured hypothetical contraction was just sufficient to mathematically
compensate for the ‘undetected time interval’ in Michelson’s experiments. (see Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 59) What an amazing coincidence!

**B.
Lorentz’s Contraction Theory**

After describing __both__ of
Michelson’s experiments in some detail in his 1895 final contraction chapter,
Lorentz focused __only__ on the M & M 1887 experiment. He concluded that the __time__ it takes
for a pencil of light to propagate to and fro in M & M’s apparatus from the
light source to the longitudinal reflecting mirror and back to the beam
splitter in the direction of the Earth’s absolute solar orbital motion is “__longer__
than the time which the other pencil[8]
takes to complete its journey by Lv^{2}/*c*^{2}.”[9] (Lorentz, 1895 [Dover, 1952, p. 5]) Lorentz asserted that this result follows
from Maxwell’s conclusion, that “…the __time__ required by a ray of light to
travel from a point A to a point B and back to A must vary when the two points
together undergo a __displacement__…” __with respect to the ether at rest
in space__.[10] (*Id*., p. 3; Figure 9.1) But (continued Lorentz’s theoretical
conjectures):

“If we assume the arm
which lies in the direction of the Earth’s motion to be __shorter than__ the
other by ½Lv^{2}/*c*^{2}…then the result of the __Michelson
experiment is explained completely__.”
(*Id*., p. 5)

“The shortening
of the one diameter of the Earth would amount to about 6.5 cm.[11]
The length of a meter rod would change, when moved from one principal position
into the other, by about 1/200 micron.[12]…Revolving
the apparatus we should __perceive no displacement of the fringes__.” (*Id*., p. 6)

Based on Lorentz’s above conjectures and rationalizations, we must ask
the question: What was the longitudinal
arm of the M & M apparatus __shorter than__? According to Lorentz and the ether theory, it
was shorter than the length L of the transverse arm that was not oriented in
the direction of motion and thus remained at the same length as if it were at
rest in the ether. (Lorentz, 1895
[Dover, 1952, p. 5]) This arbitrary
concept was sometimes called the ‘rest length’ of matter in Lorentz’s and other
related theories, and mathematically it had a designated magnitude of 1. But of course we now know that this concept
of absolute ‘rest length’ was a myth. It
was an impossible absolute concept, because there is no ether and there is no
such thing as the absolute rest of a material object. (Einstein, 1905d [Dover, 1952, p. 37]) It follows that there could be no contraction
of a ‘rest length’ that __does not exist__, and there could be no
comparative measurement with respect to something that does not exist. Therefore, Lorentz’s contraction concept and
his mathematical contraction factor were meaningless.

How did Lorentz explain the __physical
method__ by which each rotating arm became shorter than the other in the
direction of the Earth’s solar orbital motion?

“One would have
to __imagine__ that the __motion__ of a solid body…through the resting
ether exerts upon the __dimensions__ of that body an __influence__ which __varies__
according to the __orientation__ of the body with respect to the __direction
of motion__.” (Lorentz, 1895 [Dover,
1952, p. 5])

As Born points
out: “The contraction hypothesis
seems…almost __absurd__—because the contraction is not a consequence of any
forces but appears only as a __companion circumstance to motion__.” (Born, p. 220) In other words, it was merely an *ad hoc*
hypothesis of the imagination without any physical justification. Lorentz also had an imaginary answer for
Born’s criticism. He imagined in classic
*ad hoc* fashion that “molecular forces are also transmitted through the
ether” which change the dimensions of the atoms in a solid body (i.e. the Earth
and Michelson’s apparatus) and cause it to be contracted in the direction of
its motion through the ether. (*Id*.,
p. 6)

Lorentz never stated a viable theory for what physically caused his
hypothetical contraction, as Einstein later pointed out: “this key hypothesis, …__is not justifiable__
by any electrodynamical facts…”
(Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 57)
In other words, Lorentz’s contraction hypothesis and his mathematical
contraction factor served Lorentz’s theoretical agenda, but they were
completely unjustifiable empirically and resulted solely from his
imagination.

**C. Einstein’s Contraction ‘Solution’**

As we pointed out in Chapter 10, Einstein (in his 1916 book, Relativity) described and agreed
with Maxwell’s 1879 and Lorentz’s 1895 false absolute assumptions concerning stationary
ether that resulted in M & M’s paradoxical null results. Einstein also summarized and confirmed
Michelson’s false absolute hypotheses and experiments, and described the
resulting paradox, as follows:

It turns out that
Einstein, in the above paragraph, was actually referring to his theoretical
coordinate measurement and his ‘illusion of a contraction’ of distance, which
could theoretically occur in 1905 because at that time the coordinates for both
ends of a moving rod could not __simultaneously__ be measured by a human
observer. This subject of an artificial
coordinate measurement and an ‘illusion of contraction’ of distance results
from Einstein’s concepts of relativistic kinematics. In Chapters 26 and 28, we will fully discuss
Einstein’s ridiculous concepts of relativistic kinematics, and we will
demonstrate them to be *ad hoc*, arbitrary, empirically invalid and
completely meaningless.

In effect, Einstein’s ‘solution’ for the M & M paradox asserted that there was a contraction of Michelson’s apparatus in the direction of motion, but that such contraction was only caused by the method of coordinate measurement which he employed.[20] Einstein finally asserted that:

“for a co-ordinate system moving
with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but
it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the
sun.” (Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 60)

In Einstein’s so-called ‘relative
solution’ the Sun takes the place of the stationary ether at rest in *ad hoc* solution of
desperation just like those of Fitzgerald and Lorentz.[21]

In Einstein’s
so-called ‘relative solution’ he was claiming that his artificial method for
coordinate measurements results in a mathematical illusion of contraction, and
that this illusion explains the physical and empirical M & M null
results. As Einstein’s follower Resnick
confirms: “No actual shrinkage is
implied, [there is] merely a difference in measured results.” (Resnick, 1992, p. 472) But, on the contrary, any contraction of
Michelson’s apparatus would have to be an ‘actual __physical__ contraction’
in order to explain the M & M paradox.
Without a __physical__ contraction of distance there could be no
physical and empirical explanation for the ‘missing interval of time’ which was
equivalent to the assumed greater distance.[22]

**D.
Fitzgerald’s, Lorentz’s and Einstein’s ad hoc mathematical contraction theories are meaningless.**

Referring to Lorentz’s and Fitzgerald’s contraction hypothesis, Einstein
acknowledged: “this *ad* *hoc*
postulate appeared to be only an __artificial__ means of saving the [ether]
theory.” (Einstein, 1907 [Collected
Papers, Vol. 2, p. 253]) Einstein was
right. Nevertheless, Einstein claimed in
1916 that Lorentz’s artificial and unjustifiable *ad hoc* hypothesis
provides us with the __same mathematical law of motion__ as Einstein
asserted in his Special Theory of Relativity; the purported difference being
that Special Relativity does not require “any __special hypothesis __whatsoever
as to the structure and behavior of the electron.” [23]
(Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 57) In
Einstein’s Special Theory, the contraction does not occur with respect to the
ether, but rather “with respect to the body of reference chosen in the
particular case…,” i.e. the Sun.[24] (Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 59 –
60) This *ad hoc* conjecture was Einstein’s sole explanation for the M & M
null result.

Do the above attempted distinctions, rationales and conjectures by
Einstein convince anyone? [25] The only way that Einstein’s contraction
theory could even theoretically work as an explanation for Michelson’s null
results, would be based on the __ether__ theory where the __absolute__
velocity of the Earth through space is exactly 30 km/s. But Einstein rejected the __ether__ theory
as invalid. Therefore, he also rejected
his own contraction theory or solution.

Folsing described Lorentz’s theory as follows: “In the __artificial and contrived__
Lorentzian hypothesis, contraction had been invented solely for the interpretation
of the Michelson experiment…” (Folsing,
p. 219) Arthur Miller described
Lorentz’s hypothesis of the contraction of matter based on velocity as “clearly
a __physics of desperation__.”
(Miller, p. 28) If Lorentz’s
contraction hypothesis was artificial, contrived, and a physics of desperation,
how can Einstein’s very similar contraction of matter theory (which uses
exactly the same mathematics and ether computations) be logically rationalized
to be any different? It cannot.

At the end of his 1895 paper,
Lorentz set forth a contraction factor, √1-v^{2}/*c*^{2},
and a contraction ratio that described his contraction hypothesis:

“[the] effect [is] a shortening in the direction of motion in the proportion of 1 to

√1-v^{2}/*c*^{2}…” (Lorentz, 1895 [Dover, 1952, p. 7])

If the absolute velocity of the Earth (v) remains
zero, then the square root of 1 minus zero remains 1, and there is no
contraction. According to the ether
theory, the only way that this could theoretically happen was if the Earth
remained at rest in stationary ether. On
the other hand, if the __absolute__ theoretical velocity (v) of the Earth
through space is exactly 30 km/s, as Maxwell, Michelson, Lorentz, Fitzgerald,
and Einstein assumed, then the above factor produces a mathematical contraction
of the length of the longitudinal arm exactly necessary to explain the null
result of the M & M experiment.
Another fascinating coincidence!

But if the velocity (absolute or relative) of the
Earth is 225 km/s, or 310 km/s, or 455 km/s, or any other relative velocity (as
we now know it to be), then the null result of the M & M experiment is not
explained. Why? Because the longitudinal arm would
theoretically contract much more than the exact amount necessary to explain the
missing time interval in the M & M experiment, and such much shorter
distance for light to propagate would *a priori* produce a large fringe
shift (possibly equal to 100% of a wavelength).
None of these contraction theories explain Michelson’s null results, nor
make any sense.

How
did Lorentz arrive at the contraction magnitude of 1:√1 – v^{2}/*c*^{2}
for his contraction hypothesis? Goldberg
concludes that Lorentz merely __backed into__ his contraction factor by
adopting a ratio which would *a priori* exactly compensate for the
difference in time intervals which M & M assumed but failed to detect in
1887. Thus, Lorentz’s contraction factor
was arbitrarily designed only for the __specific purpose__ of explaining the
unique M & M null result at v = 30 km/s.
As Goldberg put it:

On
the other hand, Lorentz arrived at a contraction factor of √1 – v^{2}/*c*^{2},
which produced a __smaller__ theoretical contraction of matter than
Fitzgerald’s contraction factor. What is
the reason behind these two very different contraction ratios? The obvious reason is that Fitzgerald was
attempting to explain away a specific __larger__ theoretical difference in
time intervals, and Lorentz was attempting to explain away a different __smaller__
specific difference in time intervals.
The theoretical time interval difference that Fitzgerald was trying to
explain away in Michelson’s 1881 experiment was equivalent to 10% of a
wavelength. Whereas, the smaller
theoretical time interval difference which Lorentz was attempting to explain
away in M & M’s 1887 experiment was equivalent to only 4% of a wavelength.[26]

Again, what was the reason for these theoretical
differences in specific time intervals?
Remember that the primary reason that Michelson had decided to undertake
a second experiment with Morley in 1887 was that he believed his 1881
calculation for the specific difference in time intervals was wrong. (Chapter 9)
In 1887, Michelson assumed that the perpendicular mirror in his
apparatus was also displacing from the stationary ether therefore the
perpendicular light pencil was also propagating at an __angle__ relative to
the direction of the Earth’s solar orbital motion (Figure 9.5), rather than
strictly perpendicularly relative thereto.
(Figures 9.6A
and 9.7) This greater angular distance of propagation
resulted in only 40% of the theoretical specific time interval difference which
needed to be detected in his 1881 experiment.
(M & M, 1887, pp. 334 – 336; see Figure 10.1) Remember also that in Chapter 9 we dismissed
this arbitrary hypothesis as nonsense, because a light ray has no mass and
therefore is not subject to the lateral inertial motion of the Earth.

This invalid concept of the perpendicular light
pencil propagating farther at an angle, and the theoretical blunder by M &
M in conceiving it, was incorporated into Lorentz’s contraction hypotheses and
his mathematical contraction factor which attempted to explain why such __smaller__
specific difference in time intervals was not detected by M & M. [27]
Lorentz’s hopelessly flawed contraction factor, √1 – v^{2}/*c*^{2},
was also incorporated into his 1904 Lorentz transformation equations, which we
shall discuss in Chapter 16. These
hopelessly flawed Lorentz transformation equations were in turn adopted by
Einstein in 1905 as the mathematical foundation for his Special Theory. (see Einstein, *Relativity*, Chapter 11
entitled “The Lorentz Transformation,” pp. 34 – 39; and our Chapter 27, *infra*) Aside from all of its many other problems,
which we shall describe in later chapters, Einstein’s Lorentz transformation
equations and his Special Theory based thereon can have no validity for the
simple reasons described above. The
Lorentz transformation was completely *ad hoc*, artificial, arbitrary and
meaningless. How can any theory based on
it have any real or justifiable meaning?
It cannot!

It
also turns out that the algebraic factor which Lorentz adopted in 1895 to
explain the paradoxical null result of the 1887 M & M experiment, √1
– v^{2}/*c*^{2}, is merely a special application of the
more general algebraic factor √1 – x^{2}/y^{2}, which
basically describes the __quarter arc of a circle__. (Figure 15.6) How can the algebraic description of the quarter
arc of a circle have any real meaning as the foundational basis for Einstein’s
Special Theory?

When
Lorentz applied this special case factor √1 – v^{2}/*c*^{2}
to explain the specific null result of the 1887 M & M experiment (where the
Earth is moving at 30 km/s), he also implied that matter in general contracts
progressively in the direction of motion in increments of v^{2}, from a
velocity equal to 0% of *c*^{2} to a velocity equal to 100% of *c*^{2}
(Chart 15.4C and Figure 15.5), in the
same manner as the circular arc described by

√1
– x^{2}/y^{2} on Figure 15.6. Mathematically, this appeared to work because
*a priori* the increase in the time interval of light propagating along
the progressively displacing __longitudinal__ arm of the M & M apparatus
at ever increasing velocities, as compared to the time interval of light
propagating at an angle along the transverse arm, was exactly compensated for
by such progressively increasing contraction of length (distance) of the
longitudinal arm. (Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 59) In other words, the __distance/time interval__
for a light ray at *c* to propagate a
progressively greater contracted distance in the longitudinal direction of
motion, and to propagate an unchanging distance in a direction substantially
transverse to such motion, would be exactly the same. (Figure 15.3) Therefore, *a priori*, no fringe shift
for Michelson would result.

At the solar orbital velocity of the Earth (30 km/s)
a miniscule difference in the time interval (shown just to the right of zero on
Figure 15.5) could
not be visually detected by Michelson.
It could only theoretically be detected by the fringe shift of
interfering light waves in an interferometer.
Because this method did not detect the expected difference in the assumed
time intervals, Fitzgerald suggested that __almost__ the only hypothesis
that could reconcile Michelson’s 1881 null result was his contraction of matter
theory. (Fitzgerald, Science Newspaper,
Vol. XIII, No. 378, 1889, p. 390)
However, as we discussed in Chapters 10 and 12, now other much more
viable hypotheses and explanations do exist.

What theoretically happens at the other end of
Lorentz’s circular ‘arc of contractions,’ when the theoretical velocity of
Michelson’s apparatus equals or almost equals the velocity of light: v^{2} = *c*^{2}? According to the mathematical contraction
factors of Fitzgerald, Lorentz, and Einstein, the longitudinal arm of the
apparatus contracts to zero length; Michelson, his apparatus, and the Earth
also contract to zero length and become one dimensional, but the transverse arm
of the apparatus remains uncontracted at ‘rest length.’ (see Einstein, *Relativity*, p. 41) If this
zero length apparatus is then somehow rotated through 90º, *a priori* the
former transverse arm at rest length will immediately contract to zero length
and the former longitudinal arm will immediately spring back from zero length
to its uncontracted rest length. All of
such mathematical contraction theories obviously cannot withstand their logical
maximum extensions.

Numerous supporters of Einstein and other scientists
have tried to explain and/or justify these ridiculous contraction hypotheses,
apparently in order to support Einstein’s Special Theory and his contraction
measurements. For example, here are
several quotes: “In the Michelson –
Morley experiment, the arm of the interferometer in the direction of motion
would shrink enough to compensate for the otherwise expected time difference
for the round trip of light parallel and perpendicular to the direction of
motion.” (Goldberg, p. 98) “Every body which has the velocity v with
respect to the ether contracts in the direction of motion by the fraction
√1-v^{2}/*c*^{2}.”
(Born, p. 220) “The proposed
contraction would exactly cancel the second-order effect [v^{2}/*c*^{2}]
that had inspired the Michelson-Morley experiment.” (Hoffmann, 1983, p. 82) All of these *ad hoc* attempted justifications are also meaningless.

There
is also another problem. According to
Fitzgerald, Lorentz, and Einstein, the M & M apparatus contracted in the
direction of the Earth’s motion by a __specific amount__, “the amount of
contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in
time.” (Einstein, *Relativity*, p.
59) However, based on current knowledge
of the universe, this concept requires us to ask the question: What motion of the Earth were they all
referring to, and what was the specific amount of the contraction? Was the motion of the Earth its solar orbital
velocity of 30 km/s relative to the Sun, 225 km/s relative to the core of the
MW Galaxy, 310 km/s relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, 450 km/s relative to
stars on the other side of the MW galaxy, or some other velocity? If there is no absolute or single specific
velocity of the Earth through space, how can there be a specific physical
contraction of the apparatus exactly sufficient to compensate for it? Michelson’s apparatus could not be physically
contracting relative to a multitude of different specific magnitudes of
velocity all at the same time. By the
same token, Michelson’s apparatus could not selectively __choose__ just one
relative velocity of the Earth (to the exclusion of all others) in order to
decide what distance its longitudinal arm must contract.[28] (see Chapter 10B)

Therefore, there can be no meaning nor validity to
Fitzgerald’s, Lorentz’s and Einstein’s assertions that the dimensions of a
rigid body (vis. the Earth and Michelson’s apparatus) __physically contracts
to a specific magnitude in its specific direction of its one specific velocity__
through space, or with respect to the non-existent ether. (Lorentz, 1904 [Dover, 1952, pp. 11, 21, 28]) Nor can there be any meaning or validity to
Einstein’s assertions that the ‘difference in time’ intervals “should have been
clearly detectible” and that Lorentz’s contraction solution for the null result
“was the right one” (Einstein, *Relativity*, pp. 58 – 59); or that such
specific contraction occurs “with respect to the body of reference chosen in
the particular case…” (*Id*., p. 60)

Einstein tried to justify the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
ether __physical__ contraction concept as the correct explanation for the M
& M null result paradox, so that he could claim the M & M null result
as an experimental confirmation of his own similar contraction theory. (see Chapter 36) While at the same time, Einstein and his
followers asserted that the contraction was not physical,[29]
but merely an illusion of Einstein’s method of measurement “with respect to the
body of reference chosen in the particular case…” But Einstein can’t have it both ways. He can’t have his illusionary theoretical
cake and physically eat it too!

It becomes patently obvious that Fitzgerald and Lorentz’s absolute contraction hypotheses make no sense whatsoever for any purpose. They are both completely artificial and meaningless. They were merely illogical mathematical myths of desperation asserted in an attempt to solve a mystifying empirical paradox and a scientific dilemma.[30] Likewise, such myths of desperation cannot be selectively used by Einstein in an attempt to confirm his equally artificial contraction concept or his equally meaningless Special Theory.

Aside from the completely *ad hoc* nature of Fitzgerald’s, Lorentz’s
and Einstein’s contraction hypotheses, their forced, contrived and circular
reasoning, and the other concerns already mentioned, there are two more major
problems concerning these contraction hypotheses which need to be
mentioned. First, the false assumption
that light must travel a greater distance in the direction of the Earth’s
motions (upon which Einstein’s contraction was based) contradicts the second
part of Einstein’s second fundamental postulate that light propagation on the surface
of the Earth is independent of the Earth’s motion. (see Chapter 22F) Second, there was really nothing for
Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Einstein to attempt to explain. Michelson’s experiments measured exactly what
they were designed to measure: the constant
transmission velocity of light at *c* in all directions, regardless of the
assumed motion or direction of its material terrestrial light source (real or
imagined), and nothing else.[31] The then widely accepted concept of ether
turned out to be non-existent, thus no creative hypothesis could rescue
it. No physical terrestrial displacement
of Michelson’s mirrors with respect to the ether was possible. The relative motions of the Earth vis-à-vis
an infinite number of other co-moving bodies floating in the Cosmos also turned
out to be impossible to detect or measure, especially by Michelson’s
interferometer method. The paradox of
Michelson’s null results was readily explainable on its face, without any
contrived hypothesis concerning the contraction of matter. (Chapters 10, 11 and 12) Thus, Fitzgerald’s, Lorentz’s, and Einstein’s
*ad hoc* mathematical ‘theories of
desperation’ were __never__ even necessary.
They were all meaningless, unnecessary, and __irrelevant__ to
anything. [32]

[1] Here
Fitzgerald is referring to M & M’s attempted explanation of their 1887 null
result, vis. if the Earth dragged or carried the ether along with it (called
‘ether drag’) then this could theoretically explain why the motion of the Earth
relative to the dragged along ether and the resulting difference in the time
interval of propagating light (in the ether) was not detected by M &
M. The theory was that if the moving
Earth was __at rest__ relative to the dragged along ether, then there would
be no increased time interval of propagating light relative to the ether that
could be detected by any method. But, by
1889, this ether drag hypothesis had been substantially repudiated by M & M
and others.

[2] Fitzgerald, like almost every scientist since 1887, believed that the light ray in the M & M experiment propagated over a greater distance/time interval in the direction of the Earth’s solar orbital motion. But see Chapters10 and 12.

[3] *A
priori*, the contraction could not be measured by the observers themselves,
because their measuring rods would also shrink in the same proportion as the
longitudinal arm of Michelson’s apparatus, as would everything else on
Earth. (Lorentz, 1895 [Dover, 1952, p.
6]; D’Abro, 1950, p. 132)

[4] In
1892-3 Lorentz wrote: “this experiment
[Michelson and Morley] has been puzzling me for a long time, and in the end I
have been able to think of __only one means__ of reconciling its result with
Fresnel’s theory.” (Miller, p. 28) Lorentz then suggested a contraction of
matter hypothesis similar to his later 1895 hypothesis. (*Id*., pp. 28 – 29) Fresnel’s early 19^{th} century
theory was that ether is absolutely at rest in space, and the Earth moving
through the ether partially drags the ether along with it. (Lorentz, 1921, p. 793)

[5] Lorentz wrote and acknowledged that a contraction hypothesis “has also occurred to Fitzgerald.” (Lorentz, 1895 [Dover, 1952, p. 4]) Lorentz also gave Fitzgerald some credit in his follow-up 1904 paper, to wit: “The negative result of [Michelson’s experiments] has led Fitzgerald and myself to the conclusion that the dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered by their motion through the ether.” (Lorentz, 1904 [Dover, 1952, p. 11])

[6] In their
1887 experiment, M & M were assuming an __angular__ path for the light
ray, which resulted in their attempting to detect a theoretically __smaller__
fringe shift equal to only 4% of a wavelength.

[7] “This
Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis was a hypothesis formulated *ad hoc *for the sole purpose of
explaining the null result of Michelson’s experiment.” (D’Abro, 1950, p. 132)

[8] *A
priori* the other transverse pencil of light was propagating to and fro in
the direction perpendicular to the solar orbital motion of the Earth. (Figures 9.6A and 9.7)

[9] Where L
is the equal length of each arm of the apparatus theoretically __at rest in
the ether__ (this length, of course, does not exist); v is the solar orbital
velocity of the Earth at 30 km/s, and *c* is the transmission velocity of
light.

[10] Even in
1921, Lorentz repeated this conclusion:
“if we adopt Fresnel’s theory of a stationary aether, supposing also
that a material system can have a uniform translation with constant velocity *v*
__without changing its dimensions__, we must surely expect the result that
was predicted by Maxwell.” (Lorentz,
1921, p. 793)

[11] Lorentz’s theory asserts that as the Earth daily rotates 90º on its axis, the side in the direction of its solar orbital motion continually contracts, and thereafter expands.

[12] “One could hardly hope for success in trying to perceive such small quantities except by means of an interference method.” (Lorentz, 1895 [Dover, 1952, p. 6])

[13] See Figure 10.1 for these calculations mentioned by Einstein.

[14] This paragraph demonstrates that (even in 1916) Einstein was operating and agreeing with some of the same false absolute mindsets as the rest of the scientific community.

[15] Without these impossible measurements with respect to stationary ether, the calculations derived from Figure 10.1 could not occur.

[16] Lorentz
and Fitzgerald were attempting to save the ether theory with their contraction
concepts, whereas Einstein was attempting to save ‘Maxwell’s theory and
equations for the constant velocity of light at *c*’ with his somewhat different contraction concept. Nevertheless, Maxwell’s theory and equations
for the velocity of light did __not need saving__ by Einstein’s ‘contraction
of matter theory’ contained in his Special Theory, as we shall learn in Part II
of this treatise.

[17] The reader will only fully understand what all of this means after reading Chapters 19 through 28.

[18] Is it either reasonable or convincing to selectively assert the concept of stationary ether for one set of purposes and then to deny it for another purpose (his Special Theory) on the same page? Of course not.

[19] Einstein never explained the physical process for how this mental contraction ‘action at a distance’ occurs.

[20] This assertion, of course, ignores the fact that Michelson was not measuring anything with coordinates but rather with his interferometer, and that he was only attempting to detect a change in relative light wave phases (a fringe shift), not an illusionary contraction of matter.

[21]
Einstein’s attempted coordinate __solution of perception__ was very similar
to his example of relative perception described in our Chapter 3, where a rock
falling from a moving train appears to a man on the train to fall straight down
with respect to a system of coordinates attached to the train, but relative to
the stationary system of coordinates attached to the embankment it appears to
the man on the embankment to fall with a parabolic motion. (see Figures 3.5 and 5.1)

[22] Thus,
the M & M paradox which theoretically requires a __physical__
contraction to attempt to explain it cannot be an experimental confirmation of
Special Relativity (which only provides an __illusionary__ contraction of
measurement).

[23]
Contrary to the implications from Einstein’s assertions, as we shall
demonstrate in later chapters, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity __does__
require numerous other special and *ad hoc* hypotheses.

[24] Here,
Einstein is claiming that his __illusion__ of a contraction was merely a
result of his method of measurement.
(see Chapter 28) But how could an
illusion of a contraction explain the empirical M & M null result? It could not.
In order to explain the M & M null result with a contraction, the
theoretical contraction must be __physical__. (see Figure 15.2)

[25] How
could Michelson’s apparatus __physically contract at a distance__ relative
to the Sun (its body of reference chosen)?
Einstein never told us how this magic could occur. If Michelson had chosen the core of the MW
Galaxy as his body of reference (rather than the Sun), Michelson’s apparatus
would theoretically have __physically__ contracted seven times as much
(because this relative velocity of the Earth would be 225 km/s, not 30
km/s)? According to Einstein’s Special
Theory, *a priori* it would. If it
did, how could this much greater contraction explain the much less contraction
needed to explain the unique M & M null result? It could not.

[26] Their
different algebraic factors were an obvious *ad
hoc* attempt to explain away a different specific difference in time
intervals.

[27] The
fact that Lorentz’s contraction hypothesis was even more *ad hoc* and more
absurd than Fitzgerald’s does not lend any credence to Fitzgerald’s
hypothesis. Both contraction concepts
were ridiculous, *ad* *hoc*, artificial, and completely invalid, as
Folsing, Miller and even Einstein pointed out.

[28] We now
know that there is no one specific or absolute __direction__ of the Earth’s
motion through space, and that there is no one specific or absolute *velocity*
of the Earth through space. (see Chapter
10)

[29]
Remember Resnick’s statement: “No actual
__shrinkage__ is implied, [rather there is] merely a difference in measured
results.” (Resnick, 1992, p. 472)

[30] Even though such contraction hypotheses were a clever and imaginative artificial mathematical fix (Gleiser, p. 194), they were still just invalid hypotheses on their face. If a theory is based on false premises and is logically, empirically or theoretically invalid on its face, then no mathematical ratio or theoretical description of it can rescue such a theory or enhance its validity.

[31]
Michelson’s null results were actually a confirmation of Maxwell’s theories and
equations concerning the constant transmission velocity of light at *c*.
They merely added two other phrases to Maxwell’s concept of the constant
transmission velocity of light at *c*:
“__in all directions regardless of the motion of its source body__,”
and __regardless of the relative motions of other bodies__. (see Chapters 21 and 22)

[32] In later chapters we shall demonstrate that Einstein’s Special Theory and his Lorentz transformation equations also suffer from many of the same theoretical problems that render Fitzgerald’s, Lorentz’s and Einstein’s contraction theories and contraction factors invalid and meaningless.