THE GREAT EINSTEIN – MAXWELL DEBATE
ABOUT THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT
We are very fortunate this evening
to have with us two great scientists from the past: Professor James Clerk Maxwell from
The various velocities of light, and the ‘index of refraction.’
Let us begin with you, Professor Maxwell. In the 1860s, you wrote several scientific papers about the velocity of light, did you not?
Yes, yes, that’s right. It was in 1862, 1865 and 1873 to be exact. I discovered from analyzing the light experiments of other scientists that light transmits through the medium of a vacuum at a constant velocity of about 300,000 km/sec. (see Figure 1.1) This constant velocity of light at 300,000 km/sec through a vacuum is now often referred to by the algebraic symbol…small c.
Is there a reason why light transmits through a vacuum at the constant velocity of c?
Yes. A perfect vacuum, such as the empty space between the Earth and the Moon, theoretically contains no particles of matter in it. There is nothing in the medium of a vacuum to slow the quanta (particles) or waves of light down, or to change their linear (straight line) direction of transmission. Therefore, light in a vacuum transmits at the fastest speed that nature allows, which is called velocity c.
Professor Maxwell, you mentioned that a vacuum is a medium. What does that mean?
A medium can be defined as anything that light can pass through. Light can only transmit or propagate through something that is transparent or translucent, such as a vacuum, or air, or water, or glass or a diamond. All of these are transparent mediums through which light can transmit.
I believe that there are particles of matter in water. What is the velocity of light through that material substance?
The velocity of light through the medium of water is only about 226,000 km/s because the density of atomic particles in water is quite large as compared to a vacuum or air. Therefore, it takes a longer time for light to be absorbed and re-emitted by such material particles in water, and light’s direction of transmission is also changed or refracted in this much denser medium.
The velocity of light in other material mediums also depends upon their density of atomic particles. For example, the velocity of light through the medium of air is only slightly less than c, because there are very few atomic particles in air. On the other hand, a diamond is very tightly packed with atomic particles, so that the velocity of light is only about 124,000 km/s when it transmits through a diamond. Please see Figure 2.
How do we know all of these facts?
The transmission velocity of light through all kinds of media has been empirically measured over the years, ever since about 1620 when the Dutch scientist Snell discovered how to do it. All of these empirical measurements for the velocity of various light wavelengths through various media are called the ‘index of refraction.’ In my 1865 treatise, I described the mathematical relationship of the index of refraction to the velocity of light at c in the medium of a vacuum, and in other media.
I understand that the constant velocity of light at 300,000 km/sec through a vacuum has been verified many times by experiments?
That is correct. The time for a light ray to propagate from a light source through an enclosed vacuum to a mirror and back again to the light source has been measured by a clock many times and in many places. This includes on the Earth, which moves at 30 km/s around the Sun; in a rapidly moving train; in a slow moving ship; and even in the space shuttle coasting around the Earth at about 18,000 miles per hour. In all of these different ‘frames of reference’ light has always been measured to transmit at velocity c through the medium of a vacuum. Please see Figure 3.
The paradoxes which have bewildered the scientific community for over a century.
Thank you, Professor Maxwell. Now let us talk with you, Dr. Einstein. In June 1905 you wrote a scientific paper which has been called the Special Theory of Relativity. Please tell us: Why did you invent this theory?
Vell, young man, it had to do with the measurements of the velocity of light at c in all of the different frames of reference which Professor Maxwell just described.
When a man on Earth runs toward a moving train, he reaches it more quickly if the train is also moving toward him, than if the train is moving away from him. Therefore, the velocity of the train is always different relative to the moving man, and especially in each different linear (or line of sight) direction. (see Figure 4A)
But a ray of light propagating at the constant velocity of c in a vacuum reaches the man and the train moving at any velocity and in any direction, at the same constant velocity of c. No one has ever been able to explain why this paradox occurs…except me, of course.
My Special Theory also had to do with the 1887 Michelson and Morley experiment and its paradoxical null results. I explained this mind boggling paradox by assuming that there must have been a mathematical contraction of Michelson’s apparatus in the direction of the Earth’s motion through the ether.
Is that why you invented your Special Theory of Relativity?
Ja, sure. Both of these strange paradoxes bamboozled all of the great minds of science for many decades. Someone had to find a solution to this mystery, or else ve vould all go crazy. As Miller stated in his 1998 book: “Almost any solution might do.” This is why I invented my vonderful Special Theory. It mathematically reconciled all of the paradoxes about light which mystified the scientific community.
Professor Maxwell, do you have a solution for Einstein’s paradox?
Of course. The velocity of the light ray transmitting through the medium of a vacuum does not depend upon the speed of any material body. The velocity of any light ray through any medium only depends upon the atomic density of the medium through which it transmits. For example, when the to and fro velocity of light is measured in an enclosed vacuum, light always propagates at the velocity of c in such enclosed vacuum, regardless of the speed of the material body on which it is measured. (see Figure 3 again) Why? Because there are no atomic particles in such enclosed vacuum to slow the quanta or particles of light down. Therefore, such particles of light can transmit at the fastest speed that nature allows through the vacuum, which is velocity c. It is very important to realize that the velocity of the body that transports the enclosed vacuum is irrelevant to such measurement.
The same is true of any moving body which receives such light ray. The motion or velocity of such moving body is also irrelevant to the transmission velocity of light through any medium. Please see Figure 5.
Dr. Einstein, what do you think about Professor Maxwell’s solution to your paradox?
Vell, I have to admit that it sounds logical, but I didn’t think about the velocity of light that way in my Special Theory.
Please tell us, Dr. Einstein: How did you think about light?
Vell, young man, I analyzed each ray of light as if it was a material body moving relative to another moving body in accordance with the principles of mechanics. Mechanics is based upon coordinates, frames of reference, bodies of reference, Newton’s laws of motion, Galileo’s principle of relativity, transformation equations…oh, and, of course, mathematics.
Ok, Dr. Einstein, but what was your Special Theory all about?
Vell, it was all about the velocity of light in a vacuum. But before I tell you more let me first give you a little scientific history lesson.
Einstein’s monumental error and false premise concerning the velocity of light.
What is your history lesson, Dr. Einstein?
Vell, by 1905, the science of physics had been divided into two major categories: electromagnetism (that is electricity and light) on the one hand, and Isaac Newton’s mechanics (the study of moving material bodies) on the other hand.
In the German technical schools of the late 19th century, the principles of mechanics were taught extensively, and I learned them quite well. But the subjects of electromagnetism and Professor Maxwell’s theory for the velocity of light were hardly even mentioned. My fellow students and I waited and waited in vain, but we were never taught Maxwell’s theory for the velocity of light in any school.
Dr. Einstein, did you ever learn anything about Professor Maxwell’s theory of the velocity of light?
Oh ja. In 1902, I needed to pass an exam in order to become a Swiss patent clerk. So I learned the basics of Maxwell’s equations and theory of light on my own by reading Herr Föppl’s 1894 textbook. But I never was told by anyone how the velocity of light was described or measured.
Professor Maxwell, was this the correct way to learn your equations and theory of light?
Of course not. The only way that you can understand my theory of light is to read my 1862, 1865 and 1873 treatises. But these treatises were never translated into German. Föppl, Hertz, Helmholtz, Boltzmann, Lorentz and other German scientists didn’t understand my theories about light transmitting in a vacuum, and they misrepresented their true meaning.
For example, Hertz and Lorentz made up their own equations for light and electricity and called them ‘Maxwell’s equations.’ In 1892, Hertz even misrepresented to the world that in his opinion: “Maxwell’s theory is Maxwell’s system of equations.” After that, nobody ever read my treatises on light. They only referred to Hertz’s and Lorentz’s so-called Maxwell’s equations.
Dr. Einstein, did you form any assumptions as to how the velocity of light should be described and measured?
Ja. I began with my knowledge of mechanics. In the science of mechanics, the velocity of a moving body was always described and measured with respect to another material ‘body of reference,’ such as a pole in the ground or another moving
body. Please see Figure 6A. For example, the velocity of an automobile is described and measured relative to a material body of reference, like the stationary street or another moving auto. Please see Figure 7.
In Figure 7, Autos A, B and C are all moving at a constant velocity relative to the street. Auto A is moving at a constant velocity of 50 kilometers per second relative to the street and relative to stationary parked Auto D. Auto B is moving at 10 kilometers per second in an easterly direction, and Auto C is moving at 20 kilometers per second in a westerly direction. Therefore, Auto A is also moving at a constant velocity of 40 km/s relative to Auto B in an easterly direction, and at a constant velocity of 70 km/s relative to Auto C moving in a westerly direction. These are all called ‘relative velocities.’
So naturally I assumed that the velocity of a light ray transmitting through the nothing of a vacuum must be described and measured relative to a material body of reference. How can one describe the velocity of light with respect to the nothing of a vacuum? A vacuum was not even considered to be a medium by most scientists. In my book, Relativity (at p. 22), I stated my assumption as follows, and I quote:
“Of course we must refer the process of the transmission of light (and every other process) to a rigid reference-body.”
But, Dr. Einstein, this was a false assumption. The velocity of a light ray constantly transmitting through the medium of a vacuum can only be described with respect to the vacuum. Because a vacuum is really nothing, the velocity of a light ray transmitting through it must be described abstractly.
When we describe the velocity of 300,000 km/s with respect to a vacuum this is called an ‘abstract velocity.’ For example, a rocket ship moving through empty space on the way to Mars is traveling at the abstract velocity of 20,000 kilometers per hour through the intervening vacuum of space.
I do not believe that Dr. Einstein could comprehend the idea of an abstract velocity. As Dr. Einstein just stated, his training in mechanics required him to use a rigid material reference body in order to describe or measure anything.
Professor Maxwell, please tell us: what exactly is a velocity?
That’s easy. A velocity is the speed of something (such as an auto, a rocket, or a ray of light) over a distance during a period of time, and in a specific direction. For example, Auto A in Figure 7 is traveling over the distance of 50 kilometers during the time period of one hour in an easterly direction. And the light ray L in Figure 7 is transmitted over the distance of 300,000 kilometers during the time period of one second also in an easterly direction.
Thank you, Professor Maxwell; that is easy to understand. Now let me ask Dr. Einstein another question. Dr. Einstein, did you ever attempt to describe or measure Professor Maxwell’s constant transmission velocity of light at c through a vacuum with respect to a material body of reference?
Ja, many times. Please look again at Figure 4. Figure 4B depicts a light ray moving at velocity c in an easterly direction and two trains moving along a railway embankment in two different directions. This scenario is described at pages 22 and 23 of my popular book, Relativity. I assumed that the velocity of the light ray relative to the ‘stationary’ rails was c. But when I tried to mathematically describe and measure the constant velocity of the light ray at c by also applying it relative to the two trains moving at velocity v as my bodies of reference, my algebraic result was c – v for train A and c + v for train B. Algebraically, Professor Maxwell’s velocity of light was no longer a constant velocity of c. Instead, for some mysterious reason, the light ray appeared to have changed from velocity c to c – v or c + v, depending upon the direction of the moving trains. I was completely baffled by this mathematical result.
Why were you baffled?
Because I had previously learned about the mechanics ‘principle of relativity’ from Galileo and French physicist, Henri Poincaré. According to Poincaré, the ‘principle of relativity’ should state that: The general laws of nature (including the velocity of light) should be the same with respect to a moving body and with respect to a stationary body. 
But Maxwell’s constant transmission velocity of light at c, which is a general law of nature, did not appear to retain the same constant velocity of c with respect to the two trains moving in different directions. With respect to train A moving away from the light ray, the velocity of light at c somehow changed to c – v, or smaller than c. And with respect to train B the constant velocity of c somehow changed to c + v.
As I described in my book Relativity at pages 22 and 23, and I quote:
“these results seem to come into conflict with the principle of relativity. For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in a vacuum must (according to the principle of relativity) be the same for the moving railway train as reference-body as when the stationary rails are the body of reference.  But, from our above example, this would appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is transmitted relative to the rails with the velocity of c, then for this reason it would appear that another law of transmission of light must necessarily hold with respect to the trains.”
The above described result was contradictory to Poincaré’s principle of relativity.
I then concluded that because of this dilemma there appeared to be nothing else to do but to abandon either Poincaré’s principle of relativity or Maxwell’s simple law of the transmission of light at velocity c in a vacuum.
Professor Maxwell, was Einstein correct to describe and measure your constant transmission velocity of a light ray at c relative to moving material bodies of reference; for example, the trains?
Of course not, and for two very obvious reasons: First of all, and most importantly, the velocity of any moving material body of reference (such as a train or an auto) has absolutely nothing to do with the constant transmission velocity of a light ray at velocity c through a vacuum.
The constant velocity of a light ray transmitting at c through a vacuum is an inherent characteristic (or property) of the phenomenon of light radiation in a vacuum. The empirical experiments which result in the index of refraction demonstrate the validity of these conclusions. If light transmitted at any other velocity than c through a vacuum, then it would no longer be the same phenomenon of nature. On the other hand, the laws of nature prevent any light ray from transmitting at any other velocity than c through a vacuum.
For these reasons, the phenomenon of light must always transmit at the constant velocity of 300,000 km/s through a vacuum, regardless of the velocities of any material bodies which may also be traveling through the same vacuum at some other velocity.
Professor Maxwell, you stated that there was another reason why the transmission velocity of light at c cannot be described or measured relative to a material body of reference?
Yes. The second reason is because Einstein’s algebraic measurement of light at velocity c relative to the train moving at velocity v automatically results in a very natural relative velocity of c + v or c – v for the light ray, depending upon the direction of the moving train with respect to the light ray. But any relative velocity of a light ray is completely irrelevant to my theory for the constant transmission velocity of light at c through a vacuum.
For example, let us look again at Figure 7 which shows the automobiles. I ask you: what is the velocity of the light ray constantly transmitting at velocity c in an easterly direction, relative to any moving auto? The answer is that the velocity of the light ray constantly transmitting at velocity c also has a relative velocity (of c – v or c + v) with respect to each of the material autos moving at v, and such relative velocity varies with the speed and direction of each auto. But any such relative velocity of the light ray with respect to each auto is completely irrelevant with respect to the constant transmission velocity of the light ray at c through its medium of the vacuum.
To further illustrate my point, I now ask you the reciprocal question: what is the velocity of each auto relative to the light ray? The answer is that each auto has exactly the same reciprocal relative velocity of v – c or v + c with respect to the light ray constantly transmitting at c through the vacuum. But none of these meaningless relative velocities changes or has any other effect on the constant velocity of the light ray transmitting at c through the vacuum. Thus, it appears that Einstein was fooled by his own algebraic descriptions and measurements. In fact, there never was a real problem with the velocity of light that needed any solution.
Professor Maxwell, can you summarize the problems which Dr. Einstein’s theories of measurement pose for his Special Theory?
Yes, and they are very simple. First of all, Einstein assumed that he could analyze a light ray with the same mechanics principles that he analyzed a moving material body. But, I ask you: what relevance do coordinates, frames of reference, the mechanics principle of relativity, or a body of reference have with respect to the light radiation of electromagnetism? The answer is: no relevance. Secondly, Einstein incorrectly assumed that he must describe and measure the constant transmission velocity of a light ray transmitting at velocity c with respect to differently moving material bodies of reference, rather than the correct concept of ‘through the medium of a vacuum.’ However, whenever the constant transmission velocity of light at c is algebraically described or measured with respect to material bodies moving with different velocities of v, this always algebraically results in a different and meaningless relative velocity for both the light ray and the material body.
Einstein obviously did not realize that mechanics and electromagnetism are very different phenomena, and they each have their own separate rules. Therefore, Einstein’s absurd false assumptions concerning the measurement of the velocity of light with the principles of mechanics (i.e. a body of reference) became the monumental error and false premise upon which all of his Special Theory of Relativity was based.
Einstein’s 1917 thought experiment.
Dr. Einstein, did you consider your description and measurement of the velocity of a light ray at c with respect to mechanics principles and a material body of reference to be a false premise?
No, not at all. I considered my algebraic measurements of the light ray at c – v and
c + v relative to differently moving bodies of reference, to be a mysterious paradox which needed to be mathematically explained.
During 1917, I wrote a little known treatise in which I described this paradox and my solution for it. Toward the beginning of this treatise I described another thought experiment. Please refer to Figure 8. I imagined that a ray of light was sent by the stationary sun in a certain direction. According to Maxwell’s theory, this light ray travels away from the stationary sun at 300,000 kilometers per second.
Now imagine that the sun also hurls another body into space that moves with a velocity of 1,000 kilometers per second in the same direction as the ray of light. [I then asked:] what is the velocity of the light ray in the judgment of the observer who sits on the body moving at 1,000 km/s? The answer is simple [I said]. When the body moves after the light ray at 1,000 kilometers per second, the light ray travels away from the moving body at only 299,000 kilometers per second.
Professor Maxwell, was Dr. Einstein correct so far?
Mathematically, yes. But please look again at Figure 8. The velocity of the light ray at 299,000 km/s was merely the very natural relative velocity of the light ray with respect to the body moving in the same direction at 1,000 km/s. For example, the constant transmission velocity of the light ray traveling at 300,000 km/s through the vacuum, minus the speed of the body moving at 1,000 km/s in the same direction does equal 299,000 km/s.
But I do not believe that Dr. Einstein realized that the computation 300,000 km/s – 1,000 km/s = 299,000 km/s resulted in a completely meaningless and irrelevant relative velocity of the light ray. Nor did Einstein realize that such result of 299,000 km/s did not change Maxwell’s law of nature for the constant transmission velocity of the light ray at 300,000 km/s through the medium of the vacuum.
Dr. Einstein, what meaning did the velocity of 299,000 km/s have for you?
For me, the velocity of the light ray at 299,000 km/s meant that Professor Maxwell’s constant transmission velocity of light at c was no longer constant. Why? Because somehow it had mysteriously changed from 300,000 km/s to 299,000 km/s. I believed that this mysterious change of velocity was a contradiction to Professor Maxwell’s theory, and that it threatened the validity of his theory of light.
Einstein’s concept of light before 1905.
Dr. Einstein, isn’t it true that before June 1905 you intended to eliminate the universally constant velocity of light at c through a vacuum, which is inherent in Professor Maxwell’s theory?
Ja. As I once wrote for Nature Magazine, and I quote: “the difficulty to be overcome was in the constant nature of the velocity of light in a vacuum, which initially I thought I would have to discard.”
At that time, I believed that the velocity of light could only be constant for an observer who was stationed next to the light source, and who observed the light ray emitted at velocity c. Whereas, all other observers that moved relative to that light source would measure a different velocity for the light ray, depending on their own particular velocity v relative to the light source.
Dr. Einstein, your last concept sounds a lot like the meaningless relative velocities of light that Professor Maxwell has been talking about. Professor Maxwell, what do you think of those early theories of Dr. Einstein?
You are correct. Einstein’s early theories for the velocity of light were all completely wrong and meaningless. The reason why Einstein was so bewildered about the constant transmission velocity of light at c through the medium of a vacuum was obvious. He was foolishly attempting to describe and measure this constant law of nature (velocity c) relative to material bodies of reference moving at different velocities of v and in different directions relative to the light rays. Einstein’s algebraic result of these meaningless measurements was always an irrelevant relative velocity of the light ray at c + v or c – v. In other words, his result was always more or less than c. What other ridiculous result should anyone expect?
There is no reason why a ray of light constantly transmitting through the medium of a vacuum at velocity c cannot also have many relative velocities with respect to moving material bodies. Einstein even arrived at this result before June 1905, but he could not understand it.
Professor Maxwell, could you give us another example of the relative velocity of a light ray?
Of course. No one doubts that a light ray transmits through the material medium of clear water at the velocity of 75% of c, and that this slower velocity of light does not depend upon any moving body of reference (such as a torpedo). If someone attempted to measure the velocity of a light ray through clear water relative to a speeding torpedo moving at velocity v, such light ray would very naturally travel at 75% of c minus the velocity v of the torpedo, or 75% of c plus the velocity v of the torpedo, depending upon the direction of the torpedo relative to the direction of the propagating light ray. Why should anyone believe that the velocity of a light ray through the non-material medium of a vacuum with respect to a moving body of reference is conceptually any different?
It appears to me that the two of you are actually describing two completely different types of velocity for the same light ray.
You are absolutely correct! I am describing the constant transmission velocity of a light ray at c through the medium of a vacuum, which is a law of nature. But Einstein is mistakenly describing and measuring a meaningless relative velocity of the same light ray with respect to a moving body. Einstein’s relative velocity for the light ray at 299,000 km/s does depend upon velocity of his body of reference moving at 1,000 km/s. But such irrelevant relative velocity of the light ray at 299,000 km/s is not a law of nature. For another example of the difference between these two concepts, please see Figure 1 again.
Einstein never seemed to realize that any ray of light traveling through a vacuum has two very different types of velocity. The law of nature occurs when the light ray transmits at the constant velocity of 300,000 km/s through the medium of the vacuum. Any relative velocities of the same light ray, which also occur with respect to thousands of material bodies moving at different velocities and in different directions through the same vacuum, are completely irrelevant to my above described law of nature.
The most important conclusion from all of this discussion is that there never was any real problem with the velocity of light at c through the medium of a vacuum. Einstein and his mathematical colleagues merely imagined such problems because they incorrectly analyzed the velocity of light with algebra and mechanics principles. But if analyzed properly, there never was any real problem with the velocity of light through any medium that needed Einstein’s artificial or mathematical fixes…period.
At this point let us take a short intermission.
Einstein’s attempts to justify his monumental error and
his false premise concerning the velocity of light.
Alright, now we’re back to our discussion. Dr. Einstein, what did you decide to do about the paradox which you perceived concerning the constant velocity of light at c through a vacuum?
Vell, I decided to try to reconcile the apparent contradictions and to save Professor Maxwell’s theory and Hertz’s version of Maxwell’s equations with mathematics. I did this zo that any light ray could always mathematically remain at the constant velocity of c relative to any body of reference moving at any velocity and in any direction in the universe.
That is fine mathematically, but it doesn’t make any sense physically. The velocity of any wavelength of light is only determined by the atomic density of the medium through which such wavelength transmits. For a vacuum, this density is zero.
Again, this conclusion is empirically demonstrated by the index of refraction of the medium. The velocity of any material body of reference, and the mechanics principle of relativity, have absolutely nothing to do with the constant velocity of light at c through the medium of a vacuum. It is impossible for me to state these obvious concepts any more clearly. The velocity of light is medium dependent, not mathematics, mechanics or body of reference dependent. Having to repeat these self-evident facts over and over again is very distressing for me.
By the way, my theory for the constant transmission velocity of light at c through the medium of a vacuum was always correct, and it didn’t need to be saved by Einstein’s meaningless mathematics or his artificial relativistic concepts.
Please continue, Dr. Einstein.
Let me now return to my 1917 thought experiment shown in Figure 8. As I previously stated, I vas completely mystified by the results of my computation for the velocity of light. Why should light propagate or travel differently (for example, at 299,000 km/s) when measured from the body moving at 1,000 km/s (as my body of reference), than when such light vas measured from the stationary Sun (as my body of reference)? Relative to a theoretically stationary Sun I measured the velocity of the light ray to be 300,000 km/s.
Zo I asked myself: Do the laws of nature, such as the velocity of light, really depend upon the state of motion of the observer (or measurer) on a body of reference? 
Dr. Einstein, did you ever discover any answers for the questions which you asked?
Ja. I realized that the principle of relativity must be slightly modified to state: that the laws of nature (including light, not just mechanics) are independent of the state of motion of the body of reference.
Based on this modified principle of relativity, I concluded that the velocity of light is the same (that is, independent of) whether the Sun or the body moving at 1,000 km/s is chosen as the body of reference. Therefore the same ray of light must travel at 300,000 km/s relative to the Sun and alzo relative to the body moving at 1,000 km/s, all at the same time.
Dr. Einstein, it sounds like your modified principle of relativity demands that the velocity of any light ray must be c (300,000 km/s) relative to any body, anywhere in the universe, regardless of the velocity and direction of such body with respect to the light ray. Doesn’t that make the transmission velocity of light at c an absolutely constant velocity which is not relative to anything?
Ja, ja. That’s exactly right, young man, you do understand. That is a perfect mathematical solution for the paradoxes, don’t you think?
Professor Maxwell, do you agree with Dr. Einstein?
Of course not! First of all, any principle of relativity and its equivalent motion of material bodies only relates to matter and mechanics. The motion of any material body has absolutely no relevance to the constant transmission velocity of light radiation through a vacuum, or any other medium.
Secondly, Dr. Einstein was describing the same velocity of 300,000 km/s for one light ray relative to two bodies which were moving in the same direction at very different speeds. This type of absolutely constant velocity is physically impossible. In fact, it is even mathematically impossible.
Dr. Einstein should have answered his own question as follows: Any ray of light always transmits through the vacuum of space at the constant velocity of 300,000 km/s. However, relative to the body moving at 1,000 km/s in the same direction it naturally can only travel at 299,000 km/s. But, damn it, who cares about 299,000 km/s; it is only a meaningless relative velocity.
In other words, Dr. Einstein should have described and measured the transmission velocity of the light ray at c with respect to the medium of a vacuum (like I just did), rather than relative to a moving material body of reference which only produces a meaningless, irrelevant and confusing relative velocity for the light ray.
Dr. Einstein, what did you do after you stated that the velocity of the light ray was the same (300,000 km/s) relative to both differently moving bodies of reference?
Vell, I stated that: If this appears to be impossible, the reason is that one second of time as measured from the sun is not equal to one second of time as measured from the moving body. 
But Dr. Einstein, how can one second measured from two differently moving bodies have unequal durations of time?
It can if you are measuring one second from each body by visually comparing the hands of each distant clock on each body, or if you are measuring physical time coordinates, or if you are measuring time with algebraic equations. The mathematical result is called ‘apparent clock time,’ ‘coordinate time,’ or ‘mathematical time’  Please see Figure 9 to see what I am talking about.
So Professor Maxwell, what do you think about Einstein’s ‘apparent clock time,’ or ‘mathematical time’ or ‘coordinate time’?
Well, they are all fine for pure mathematicians; but for everyone else, they are totally without any meaning. Any form of mathematical time is very different than (and irrelevant to) the normal duration of time that exists everywhere in the universe, and the normal definition of ‘time’ that all humans use each day.
Einstein’s distortion of physics.
Dr. Einstein, what did you do after you described your mathematical time solution for your new absolutely constant velocity of light at c (300,000 km/s) relative to everything?
Vell, I naturally decided that all of the rest of physics must alzo be changed zo that it could be mathematically consistent with my new mathematical time and my modified absolutely constant velocity of light at c.
Based on my assumption that the relative velocity of the two bodies in my 1917 thought experiment had somehow changed the transmission velocity of light from c to c – v or c + v, I further assumed that the same relative velocity should also change all other physical laws of nature, such as the length of a body, its mass, the time on such body, and its energy.
Dr. Einstein, how exactly did you accomplish these goals?
First I stated that my modified principle of relativity (which included light), and my absolutely constant velocity of light at c were postulates (or axioms) that could not be challenged. Then I convinced everyone that time and space (or distance) were relative concepts, with my two postulates, with my coordinate measurements, and with my algebraic equations.
My goodness, how did you do that?
It vas really very easy. Please look at Figure 9 again. I defined ‘simultaneous time’ to mean two stationary clocks A and B located close to each other but at different places on two systems of coordinates, S and S', provided that their hands pointed to the same number, such as 3 o’clock. I synchronized these clocks with light signals and with my absolutely constant velocity of light at c. Observers S and S' in both systems then measured both ends of a meter rod B simultaneously in System S' and meter rod A in System S' by superimposing each meter rod over the other. At this point, both observers determined that each stationary rod was one meter in length.
Then System S' moved at a uniform velocity away from System S. Thereafter, both distant observers again measured both ends of the meter rod in the other system at two different times, but this time with coordinates, with light signals and with algebra. Each observer then determined that the meter rod in the other system now had a different coordinate length than the meter rod in their own system, and that the clocks in each system were no longer synchronous or simultaneous.
Based on these measurements, I concluded that time and distance are relative concepts, and that the time and length with respect to any relatively moving body depends upon its relative velocity. I then changed both of these classical measurements of time and length with my new relativistic measurements, with my new absolutely constant velocity of light at c, with my mathematics, and with my interpretations. Not bad, eh?
That was all very clever, Dr. Einstein. Don’t you think so, Professor Maxwell?
Mathematically very clever, yes. But physically, no. There are very simple explanations for the confusing paradoxes which Einstein created. First, with respect to length. Please see Figure 9 again. When the systems were stationary, Observer S' did not need to measure both ends of rod A simultaneously with coordinates, because they did not move relative to stationary Observer S'. But when Observer S' was moving away from rod A she would have to measure both ends of rod A simultaneously to get the same result. (see Figure 10) If Observer S' measured the R end first, then because of her relative motion her distant coordinate measurements of meter rod A would be longer than one meter. But if Observer S' measured the F end first then because of her relative motion her distant coordinate measurement of meter rod A would be shorter than one meter. (see Figure 11) Because it is physically impossible for any human being to measure both ends of a linearly moving rod simultaneously (with eye and hand measurements of coordinates), her coordinate measurement will always appear distorted. And the faster the relative motion of S and S' the greater will be the distortion for her coordinate measurements.
My goodness, those artificial and misleading measurements of length by Dr. Einstein, and his misleading conclusions and interpretations, border on misrepresentations of fact.
You are correct. Now, secondly, with respect to time. Please see Figure 9 again. When the hands of the two clocks (S and S') are stationary and superimposed over one another, they tell the same simultaneous or synchronous time. But after S' moves away from S and the two clocks are located at a substantial distance from one another, “their hands cannot have identical positions simultaneously as measured” by the two distant observers S and S' located at different distances from each clock. Observer S' may see the second hand of clock S' at 10 seconds past three, but by the time that the light from clock S reaches Observer S', clock S will show an earlier time of 5 seconds past three. So the two clocks appear to S' to no longer show the same simultaneous time. Clock S appears to Observer S' to be running slower than clock S'. The obvious reason for this lack of simultaneous time for the two distant clocks is because of the distance/time interval delay of the finite velocity of light at c with respect to each different observer. However, Einstein’s misleading conclusion for this lack of simultaneity was the clocks’ relative motion. But this was not the real reason.
Einstein’s misleading conclusion was (and I quote):
“So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, 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.”
Oh my goodness, those artificial measurements of time by Dr. Einstein, and his misleading conclusions, also border on misrepresentations of fact.
You are absolutely right. All of these artificial measurements and misleading conclusions were completely meaningless physically. They were just like when a magician fools you with his ‘slight of hand.’
Didn’t any scientist ever realize and expose these subterfuges?
Yes…well sort of. After writing a 200+ page book in 1968 on Special Relativity, which described Einstein’s so-called mathematical concepts and experimental confirmations, Professor Robert Resnick finally acknowledged reality and the truth in his 1992 textbook, with the following statement (and I quote):
“The essence of relativity is that results of measurements of length and time are subject to the state of motion of the observer relative to the event being measured…If different observers were to bring the rod to rest in their individual inertial frames, each would measure the same value for the length of the rod. In this respect, special relativity is a theory of measurement that simply says ‘motion affects measurement.’”
What a revelation: Special Relativity simply says, ‘motion affects measurement!’
But Einstein and his colleagues were asserting much different conclusions. Was there anything else wrong with Special Relativity?
Oh my, yes. Einstein’s entire Special Theory is filled with empirically invalid and misleading concepts, definitions, interpretations, and conclusions. Both of Einstein’s fundamental postulates were empirically invalid, as we have previously demonstrated. His definitions of simultaneity and time were completely artificial; his coordinate and algebraic measurements of time and distance were meaningless and totally wrong; and all of his interpretations were both wrong and absurd.
All that Dr. Einstein’s ridiculous
coordinate and mathematical measurements did was to distort
In my opinion, Special Relativity was not science; it was just pseudo-science.
Einstein’s mathematical proofs: the Lorentz Transformations.
Dr. Einstein, how were you able to demonstrate that all of your changed laws of physics were mathematically consistent?
Aha! With mathematics, of course! First I claimed that all of the laws of physics were dependent upon relative velocities.
Yes, but none of these claims were true.
Please, Professor, let Dr. Einstein finish.
Thank you. Then I insisted that in order to get rid of these troublesome relative velocities we had to apply the Lorentz transformation equations to everything.
If you look at Figure 12 you will see a Lorentz transformation equation which I found in a 1904 paper written by the Dutch physicist, H. A. Lorentz. Lorentz used these radical transformation equations to mathematically save the concept of stationary ether and to prove how the paradoxical Michelson and Morley experimental null results could have occurred if there was a physical contraction of matter through the ether. I used these magical transformation equations in my Special Theory in order to make my Special Theory work.
In my Lorentz transformation equations, x stands for the position of a body and x' + vt stands for the position of another body x' which has uniformly moved away from the first body x for a distance of vt. vt stands for the velocity v of body x' over the period of time t.
It is obvious that as the square of the relative velocity v of the body x' in the denominator increases, the value of the numerator on the top of the equation also increases. With a little bit of creative interpretation you can perform all kinds of mathematical tricks with this transformation equation.
For example, with my Lorentz transformations I mathematically changed the measurement of the material body x' so that it could contract (or shrink) to almost nothing in its direction of relative velocity. I also mathematically changed the duration of time on body x' so that it could slow down and so that time could almost stand still. This concept (known as ‘time dilation’) mathematically makes ‘one second’ of time different for anyone who moves. I even mathematically changed the mass and energy of body x' so that it could increase almost to infinity, depending upon its relative velocity. All of these changes depended upon the magnitude of the velocity between x and x'. Isn’t that wonderful?
But Dr. Einstein, in your book Relativity (at pages 40 to 42) you multiplied the Lorentz factor √1 – v2/c2 times x' in order to arrive at a contraction of the body x', and then you divided the Lorentz factor into body x' in order to arrive at the dilation (or slowing down) of time on body x'. When the values for these computations are plotted on a graph for all possible relative velocities, the curves are very different.
For example, please look at Figure 13. How can a body which is moving at a
relative velocity of 95% of c be contracted 70%, while the time on such body is only dilated or slowed down by about 3%? These values are not reciprocal, and your concepts are neither logically nor mathematically consistent. How do you explain these inconsistencies?
Vell, I try not to think about them too much. Shame on you, young man, for pointing that out! I was hoping that no one would ever realize that my concepts of Special Relativity were inconsistent.
Professor Maxwell, don’t you think that Dr. Einstein’s Lorentz transformation equations can perform wonderful mathematically tricks?
Wonderful mathematical tricks, yes; but these mathematical tricks are also physically meaningless and they distort physics.
When Dr. Einstein applied the Lorentz transformation equations to my constant velocity of light at c and to the other valid laws of physics, his troublesome relative velocities (c – v and c + v) algebraically went away. Einstein called his artificial dilation of time and contraction of distance: ‘co-variance.’ Covariance caused both coordinate systems S and S' to mathematically coincide again at the zero point of each coordinate system, by artificially eliminating the intervening time, distance and relative velocity between S and S'. But in the process such valid laws of physics then became distorted into invalid relativistic laws.
One major result of Einstein’s mathematical tricks was that they completely changed
my theory for the constant transmission velocity of light at c in a vacuum. Please
look at Figure 14. Einstein derived this strange new equation from the Lorentz transformations, and he used it to mathematically attempt to justify and confirm his radically changed transmission velocity of light at c relative to anything, anywhere, at any time. For example, when this radical new equation for light was applied to the relative velocities of c – v and c + v they mathematically turned into the impossible absolutely constant velocity of light at c (300,000 km/s) relative to any uniformly moving body in the universe, all at the same time, regardless of such body’s own velocity v relative to the light ray.
Physicist Lee Smolin, in his new book The Trouble with Physics, referred to this mathematical trick by Einstein as “the trick that made relativity special.” And I agree: special, but not correct.
Professor Maxwell, why do you think that Dr. Einstein adopted the Lorentz
transformations for his Special Theory?
Bertrand Russell, in his 1927 book, tells us why. Please let me read the following
passage from Russell’s book at page 49:
“Technically, the whole of the special theory is contained in the Lorentz transformation. This transformation has the advantage that it makes the velocity of light the same with respect to any two bodies which are moving uniformly relatively to each other, and, more generally, that it makes the laws of electromagnetic phenomena (Maxwell’s equations) the same with respect to any two such bodies. It was for the sake of this advantage that it was originally introduced…”
Einstein’s so-called experimental confirmations.
Dr. Einstein, what other ways did you use to attempt to physically confirm the validity of your new mathematically changed laws of physics?
Oh yes, vell that was the easy part. First, with a few more creative interpretations I was able to mathematically demonstrate that such changed laws should be valid laws.
Then my colleagues and I found other theories and experiments which appeared to confirm my new mathematical concepts and my changed laws of physics.
Yes, but Einstein’s mathematical and experimental proofs didn’t have any valid physical meaning either. With respect to all of these other theories and experiments which Einstein referred to as physical ‘confirmations’…when they were properly analyzed and scrutinized they were also found to be completely incorrect or meaningless. In other words, all of such so-called confirmations were actually either wrongly interpreted, or merely coincidences, or merely approximations, or just mathematical speculations, and the like.
Unfortunately, Einstein’s mathematical tricks cannot be physically falsified because at normal velocities of material bodies (such as a rocket traveling to the Moon) his theoretical concepts of length contraction, time dilation and the increase in mass with velocity, etc., would be much too small to be detected. Conveniently for Einstein’s Special Theory, these bizarre concepts could only theoretically be detected at the very high velocities of atomic particles in a particle accelerator, and these velocities would all be very close to the speed of light. For example, if you plot on a graph the values for Einstein’s relativistic equation for the increase of mass with velocity, you get the graphical illustration for the Lorentz transformation shown on Figure 13B.
It is easy to see from this graph that there can be no physically detectible increase in
the mass of a body until its theoretical velocity nearly reaches the velocity of light. And then for some unexplained reason it suddenly and dramatically increases toward infinity.
Because no one has ever seen a speeding electron contract, or its mass and energy increase with its velocity, or the time on it slow down, these theoretical phenomena can only be inferred or imagined by particle physicists.
But since all of these mathematical concepts are based upon, and depend upon, Einstein’s fundamental false premise concerning the velocity of light in a vacuum, I would have to ask the question: why should anyone believe that they are physically real?
One last question, Dr. Einstein. What was General Relativity all about?
Vell, I soon realized that Special Relativity only applied to uniform rectilinear motion. So in order to make Special Relativity also apply to accelerated motions like gravity, I had to generalize Special Relativity. And in order to remain physically and mathematically consistent I also had to invent a new kind of gravity that was not based upon force.
That’s what General Relativity was all about. It was merely a generalization of Special Relativity so that it could apply to any kind of motion.
Ok, but Einstein’s general theory was completely unnecessary, because material motion is always irrelevant to the velocity of light at c. (see Figure 5B again to understand why)
The unfortunate results of Special Relativity.
Professor Maxwell, in your opinion, what were the results of Dr. Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity?
Well, by the time one read the last page of his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity, there is no doubt that Einstein had mathematically and theoretically changed most of classical physics.
His mathematical theories were at first challenged by many scientists. But because Einstein’s mathematics was generally consistent, because of his so-called physical confirmations, because Special Relativity is so easy and convenient for scientists to use, and because many scientists didn’t have any idea what Einstein was really talking about, most of the scientific community finally accepted his theories around 1919.
Actually, there are no experimental confirmations for Einstein’s Special Theory, nor can there be. Why? Because Special Relativity is just an elaborately contrived and meaningless mathematical theory which merely attempts to justify its own monumental false premise.
Unfortunately, Special Relativity is now considered to be a fundamental law of physics. Almost every part of physics is now distorted by Special Relativity and General Relativity, including mechanics, gravity, rocket science, particle physics, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, optics, cosmology, and now theology.
Why haven’t more scientists tried to demonstrate that Special Relativity is invalid and meaningless?
Because it is also unfortunate that, despite its fundamental false premise, and despite all of its obvious flaws and invalid concepts, Special Relativity is now considered by the scientific community to be indisputable. Currently, no major scientific magazine would even print an article that challenges or disputes Einstein’s theories.
I can certainly understand why the scientific community wants to look the other way and declare Einstein’s Special Theory to be infallible or indisputable. Just think of the mammoth modifications to physics textbooks, theories, experiments, etc., etc. that will now be necessary in order to remove all of the vestiges of Einstein’s invalid theories and distorted concepts from the world…let alone to replace them with correct theories, concepts and experiments.
How could the scientific community ever explain or justify the vast resources expended, the millions of human hours wasted, and the billions of dollars squandered on this invalid and meaningless theory?
But, of course, it must be done…and as soon as possible. These same problems occurred during the early 20th century, when the scientific community finally realized and admitted that the false hypothetical concept of ether was only a myth.
Well, I guess that ends our discussion and our debate for this evening. We will have to leave it up to the viewers to judge for themselves which one of you is correct.
Someday what we discussed here tonight may be discussed by high school and college students around the world. When that day comes our viewers can tell their children and their grandchildren that they were among the first to really understand Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, and why it is either: possibly valid or completely meaningless.
As Edward R. Morrow used to say: Good night, and good luck.
_________ o _________
[Note: If any of our viewers or readers have any questions that they would like to be answered about Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, please email them (along with any comments or suggestions) to: Info@RelativityofLight.com.]
D’Abro, A. (1950). The Evolution of Scientific Thought.
Einstein, A. (1905). On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. [The Principle of Relativity,
Einstein, A., Relativity
(1961 Edition). Crown Trade Paperbacks:
Einstein, A. (1917). The Principal Ideas of the Theory of Relativity. [Collected Papers of
Albert Einstein, Vol. 7, pp. 3 –
Folsing, A. (1998). Albert Einstein. Penguin
Goldberg, S. (1984). Understanding Relativity. Birkhäuser:
Halliday, D. (1992). Physics, Vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Jammer, M. (2006). Concepts of Simultaneity.
Jacobs, J.M., RelativityofLight.com/1.0 (2001 – 2010).
Lagunov, A. (2005). Henri Poincaré and Relativity Theory.
Lorentz, H. A. (1904). Electrodynamic
Phenomena [see The Principle of
1952, pp. 9 – 34].
Maxwell, J. C. (1873).
A Treatise on Electricity and
Magnetism, Vol. 2.
Maxwell, J. C. (1890).
The Scientific Papers of James
Michelson, A. & Morley, E. (1887). On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous
Ether. American Journal of Science, XXXVI. 333-345.
Miller, A. (1998). Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of
Resnick, Physics, Vol. 1 (1992). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
(1987). From Paradox to Reality.
(1927). The Analysis of Matter.
Harcourt, Brace & Company:
Smolin, L. (2006). The Trouble with Physics. Houghton
 See Maxwell
 The process of absorption and re-emission of light particles by atomic particles of matter (i.e. electrons) is not instantaneous; it takes a small quantity of time. See Halliday, p. 892.
 See Sobel, p. 5.
 A ‘frame of reference’ is a mathematical term which means a material body that has a certain velocity in a specific direction.
 See Goldberg, pp. 85 – 86; Rohrlich, p. 52.
 See Michelson and Morley (1887), pp. 333 – 345.
 See Einstein, Relativity, pp. 58 – 60. But also see MichelsonandMorleyParadoxSolved.com, which describes the real solutions for the M & M paradox.
 See Miller, pp. 27 – 29. Miller also stated that Lorentz’s ad hoc transformation equations, which produced a contraction of Michelson’s apparatus, was “clearly a physics of desperation.” (Id., p. 28)
 Please see RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapter 22 to understand how and why light really transmits and propagates.
 See RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapter 13.
 In 1956, Louis Kollros, a classmate of Einstein’s at ETH (Einstein’s technical high school), recalled: “We waited in vain for an exposition of Maxwell’s theory.” Einstein attempted to fill this and other gaps in his knowledge by independently reading the works of various European scientists, such as Helmholtz, Hertz, Lorentz and Poincaré. (see Miller, pp. 86 – 87, footnote 8 at p. 165)
 See Miller, pp. 142 – 144)
 See Miller, pp. 142 – 145; 86 – 87.
 See Miller, pp. 11 – 14; 23 – 27; 86 – 87.
 See Goldberg, p. 208 – 209; Lagunov, pp. 25, 242; Einstein, Relativity, p. 16; RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapters 5 & 16.
 It must be realized that the constant transmission velocity of the light ray through the medium of the vacuum in Einstein’s example never changed; it remained at a constant transmission velocity of c with respect to the vacuum. But with respect to the trains moving in different directions at different velocities of v, the relative velocities of the same light ray were very naturally c – v and c + v…just like the relative velocities in the example of the autos in Figure 7.
 Einstein never seemed to realize that any light ray (just like any moving auto) has two different types of velocity: a constant velocity with respect to the non-moving medium (the vacuum, the air, or the road), and many relative velocities with respect to differently moving material bodies.
 See Einstein, Relativity, pp. 23 – 24.
 See Einstein (1917), pp. 3 – 4. What are the correct answers for Einstein’s example and paradox? Einstein’s computation of 300,000 km/s - 1,000 km/s = 299,000 km/s was just the very natural (but meaningless) relative velocity of the light ray transmitting at c (300,000 km/s) with respect to the body moving in the same direction at v = 1,000 km/s. Such relative velocity of 299,000 km/s did not change the constant transmission velocity of the light ray at c through the vacuum. Any moving body of reference and any relative velocity of the light ray are completely irrelevant to Maxwell's Law for the constant velocity of light at c through the medium of a vacuum.
 These ideas emanate from a footnote to a draft of a 1920 article for Nature Magazine (see Folsing, p. 172) Einstein later changed his mind, and with his Special Theory he artificially attempted to mathematically transform all of these relative velocities of light (at c – v and c + v) so that they would always be measured by any observer in any frame of reference in the universe to be a constant velocity of c.
 Relative to the Sun (which Einstein artificially assumed was stationary), the velocity of the propagating light ray was 300,000 km/s, because a priori the material Sun was not moving relative to the light ray.
 The answer to Einstein’s question is of course no, but not for the reasons which Einstein next stated.
 See Einstein (1917), pp. 4 – 5.
 This impossible and absurd concept was the foundation of Einstein’s 1905 Special Theory of Relativity.
 This absolute concept is the same as saying that auto A in our prior Figure 7 has an absolutely constant velocity of 50 km/h with respect to all of the following bodies at the same instant: the road, auto B moving at 10 km/h in the same direction, and auto C moving at 20 km/h in the opposite direction. This, of course, is a physical impossibility. (see RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapters 21, 22, 23 and 24)
 See Einstein (1917), p. 5.
 These kinds of measurements for time have no meaning, unless the reader agrees with Einstein’s artificial and meaningless methods of defining or measuring ‘time.’ (see RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapters 25 and 26)
 See Einstein (1905d), pp. 37 – 38.
 See RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapters 26, and 28.
 See Einstein, Relativity, pp. 25 – 31, 38 – 43; RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapter 28.
 See Resnick (1992), at p. 480.
 See Resnick (1968), p. 56.
 See Einstein (1905), pp. 42 – 43.
 For many examples, see RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapters 25, 26, 28 and 29.
 See d’Abro, p. 162.
 See Einstein (1905d), pp. 43 – 48; Einstein, Relativity, pp. 34 – 39.
Lorentz (1904) [
 See RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chpaters 27 and 28.
 See Einstein, Relativity, pp. 40 – 42. But also see RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapter 28, in order to understand why these absurd and artificial claims by Einstein are empirically invalid and do not physically occur.
 See Einstein (1905d), pp. 61 – 65; and Einstein (1905e), pp. 69 - 71. Also see RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapters 17, 31and 32, in order to understand why these claims by Einstein are empirically invalid and do not physically happen.
 See Einstein, Relativity, pp. 47 – 48.
 All of such valid laws of physics were required by Einstein to be divided by the Lorentz transformations so that they could be ‘covariant:’ of exactly the same algebraic form or magnitude in both relatively moving bodies. See Einstein, Relativity, pp. 34 – 39, 47 – 48; d’Abro, p. 162.
 See Einstein (1905d), pp. 50 – 51. Also see RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapter 29, to understand why Einstein’s artificial relativistic equations for the velocity of light have no empirical validity.
 See Smolin, pp. 227 – 229.
 See Russell (1927), The Analysis of Matter, p. 49.
 See Einstein (1905d), pp. 51 – 61. Also see RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapters 36, 37 and 38 to better understand why the so-called proofs in Einstein’s 1905 theory were not empirically valid.
 Three of the most important so-called proofs of the validity of Special Relativity are described in Einstein’s book, Relativity. Einstein’s contraction of matter explanation of the 1887 Michelson & Morley paradox is described in Relativity at pp. 57 – 60. However, see the ‘MichelsonandMorleyParadoxSolved.com’ to understand the real answers to the Michelson & Morley Paradoxical null result.
The real answers to the puzzling 1851 Experiment of Fizeau are not found in Einstein’s Relativity (pp. 43 – 46); but rather they are found in RelativityofLight.com/1.0, Chapters 7 and 29, and in a treatise which is currently being prepared.
Einstein applauded the contributions of Minkowski’s concept of Spacetime for his relativistic theories in Relativity (at pp. 61 – 64). However, Chapter 33 of RelativityofLight.com/1.0 explains why Spacetime is completely artificial and empirically invalid.
 An exhaustive list of such failed confirmations is currently being prepared and explained. When it is finished it will be published on RelativityofLight.com/1.0 as Chapters 34 through 38.
 For a confirmation of this fact, see Einstein, Relativity, pp. 49 – 50.
Einstein (1907), Jahrbook article,
Princeton University Press, Vol. 2, pp. 301 – 311; Einstein (1916) [
 See Dingle (1972), Science at the Crossroads.
 The Pope recently acknowledged that God created the expanding universe with a Big Bang. But see “TheDayTheUniverseStoppedExpanding.com,” which conclusively demonstrates why Einstein’s finite spherical universe cannot be expanding, and why the Big Bang never happened.