Introduction

Why is Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity or STR and its purported defects of importance with all that has gone on and is going on in our world?  It is a very complex domain.  Those of us who have spent time studying and investigating this topic know of its importance both in and out of science, especially given the often hysterical and exaggerated claims by its supporters as to the limitless wonders and knowledge it bestows on humanity.  STR has indeed conferred proofs and benefits but much of it is entirely open to dispute though the single narrative of ‘the science’ will never discuss such issues. 

There are many reasons for laypeople to dig into STR besides its practical usage in some technical and scientific applications. 

First, anyone who studies STR objectively must notice that STR is one of the best examples in modern history of the cult of ‘science’ or Scientism, in which arcana and esoterica, often unrelated to physical evidence, become ‘laws’.  From these ‘postulates’ one does notice the creation of entire industries and compliant media, replete with funding and power.  This is now how ‘modern science’ operates.  It often has little to do with physical science. 

Second, the elevation of ‘science’ to cult like status, including ‘heroes’ like Einstein who are to be feted and worshipped, provides a cultural backdrop for totalitarianism as evidenced by the Corona plan-scam-demic in which ‘science’ (fiction only), with its priesthood of ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ clinging to the only holy gospel of secular truth, were invoked as rationale for the complete destruction of freedom and rights.  Corona can be accurately described as a pilot project of geo-Fascism.  Scientism or the religion of science, is essential for a technocratic fascism, with its exalted prophets, priests, cardinals and bishops, against whom no heresy or heretic can stand. 

Third, if there is a disconnect between STR and practical physical reality this must by default, retard and obstruct actual scientific advancement, especially in physics and cosmology.  Entire tracts of both would need to be reassessed when enough brave souls dare to put STR to proper physical testing and assess its tautological inconsistencies.  This includes the obvious issues and disproofs of the Big Bang theology.  

Organisation of the discussion

The following is Part One of 4 articles on the topic, split into equal measure due to complexity and length. 

 

Part One is split between (a) and (b) to introduce the subject.  Part One (a) looks at the theory, its context and its primary focus.  Part One (b) delves into the underlying mathematical models. 

 

Part Two discusses the historical context of STR, and key antecedental and contemporary figures of Einstein including Maxwell, and Lorentz along with mathematical theorists like Minkowski who greatly influenced Einstein.

 

Part Three will focus on the famed scientist Herbert Dingle’s detailed and never answered critique of STR (the only replies were ad hominins and completing ignoring his maths and proofs).  Dingle was of course slandered, attacked, and degraded but his many objections were never answered by either experimental proofs or logical mathematics. 

 

Part Four will look at other general objections to STR and its many problems outside of Dingle’s complaint. Many of these are detailed, logical and experimentally based. They are of course dismissed as ‘outside the mainstream’ as if that is a serious defect. Part Four will also summarise the implications of what has been investigated. 

Everyone should have a look

In short, any layperson with a curious mind, possessing average logical and mathematical skills can understand STR.  The priests and prophets of the ‘science’, many of whom do not understand the theory, keep it cloaked in mystery and incense to elicit compliance and to evade incisive and debilitating questions.  Can you imagine a schoolteacher reacting to a curious student’s statement, ‘yes teacher E=mc2 is interesting but has little to do with the theory of relativity, or relative motion and using that as proof is circular reasoning since it is embedded in the theorem’. 

The abstract, closeted nature of theoretical arcana which are declared to be laws, is precisely why STR should be looked at.  It is about time that ‘science’ rejoin reality and be forced to explain its ‘logic’ in plain terms, to common people.  We should encourage questions and debate.

What is STR?

In 1905 Einstein issued his paper on STR which was divided into two parts:

I. Kinematical Section;

II. Electrodynamical Section.

 Kinematics is the branch of mechanics concerned with objects in motion, but not with the forces involved and electrodynamics is the study of moving electric charges and their interaction with magnetic and electric fields.  The whole essence of STR is contained in section I on kinematics, which is significant, though I found little commentary on it in the mainstream publications (more later).  

STR is usually portrayed as a revolt against Newtonian mechanics.  I am not sure this is correct.  What Einstein was trying to do was correct some issues with Newton’s theorems on gravity – in particular the orbit of Mercury.  He was trying to support it, not displace it. He offered the view that each object through gravity, can ‘curve’ the fabric of space and time around them, forming a sort of a depression, akin to a heavy object resting on your sofa cushion.  Objects including your cat or light would fall into the depression.

 This is the space-time curve, which Newton did not know about, and which is now attributed to Einstein but it was not his ‘discovery’ but originally that of Minkowski a mathematician (more later).   More here