Of all the achievements attributed to Einstein, by far the most notable was his origination of the special and general theories of relativity. However, it is the writers contention that the concepts of relativity have been an impediment to the rational progress of science for the last hundred years. Whereas it has always been assumed that the scientific process was based on sound, verified facts, systematically accumulated and woven into a tapestry of rational, understandable knowledge, such has not been the case since the inception of relativity. The ingredient that is missing in relativity is "rationality"; also known as "common sense." The truth of this statement is best expressed in the preface to the recent book by Eric Chaisson, Relativity, Black Holes, and the Fate of the Universe, in which the author states -- with regard to relativity -- ?I suggest that anyone willing to forgo common sense and human intuition can grasp the essentials of this, the grandest accomplishment of the physical sciences.? Although this statement clearly indicates the condition of relativity (that it lacks common sense), the reason for its being in that condition is best explained by the following statement from Einstein's Herbert Spencer lecture of 1933: ?Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.? However, It is the purpose of this paper to show how ?pure logical thinking? will reveal the impossibilities that are inherent in the theories of relativity.
According to the classical definition of ?time??i.e., that it is uniform throughout the universe?the instant of ?now? is perceived to exist simultaneously at all points in the universe. However, according to Einstein?s special theory of relativity, where time is not uni-form throughout the universe, the instant of ?now? is not perceived to exist simul?taneously at all points in the universe. For this reason, Einstein be?lieved it was not possible to arrive at a mean?ingful definition of the instant of ?now.? It is believed, however, that if one will compare the understanding of the instant of ?now? that derives from the classical definition of ?time? with the understanding that derives from the special-relativistic definition of ?time,? that it may help in arriving at a true, rational definition of both ?time? and the instant of ?now.?
In the latter part of the 19th century, it was believed that light was a wave-type phenomenon, and that an invisible light-conducting medium was required through which the waves could propagate since by definition waves are cyclic deformations that propagate through light-conducting mediums, thus mandating the existence of such a medium. In 1905 Einstein published a paper entitled "On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Transformation of Light". In this paper he introduced the concept that rather than being a wave-type phenomenon, light actually consisted of particles, commonly referred to as "photons"; however, he did not give up the concept of wavelengths being associated with the photons. This hybrid definition of light, i.e., that it consists of particles with various wavelengths, has resulted in a confused understanding of light, permitting relativists to believe that a light-conducting aether was not required since light actually consisted of particles and hence waves were not required for their transmission. The purpose of this paper is to point out that light is a wave-type phenomenon in every respect, and that an aether is still a scientific requirement for its transmission.
In the author?s book Einstein and The-Emperor?s-New-Clothes Syndrome: The Expos? of a Charlatan, a Universal Energy Field (UEF) was proposed as the universal medium required to explain the phenomenon of gravity. It was also shown that this UEF was the medium required to explain the phenomenon of light: the medium previously referred to as the ?aether.? However, because relativity has for so long contended that such a medium does not exist, it is realized that its existence will not be readily accepted as a scientific fact. For this reason, then, the following discussion con?cerning the similarities between the UEF and the earth's atmosphere is presented, with the following two purposes in mind: 1. To help clarify how the UEF provides the rational expla?nation for the properties of light, which are, at the present time, irrationally explained by relativity, and 2. To point out the similarities between the forces generated by the UEF and the atmosphere, to more clearly show that the UEF is not only plausible, but is es?sential for the rational understanding of the physical universe. In addition, it will also be explained how the UEF com?prises the long-sought missing mass of the universe.
In the early part of the 20th century, Albert Einstein published several papers, two on his theories of relativity, one on the photoelectric effect, and one in which he ostensibly derived the famous equation E = mc2. Primarily as a result of these papers, Einstein became acclaimed by the dominate segment of the scientific community as both the greatest scientist of all time and the greatest man of the 20th century. However, it is the purpose of this paper to review Einstein's papers and point out that Einstein was ? in fact ? the most irrational person ever to masquerade as a mathematician or scientist: a man who perhaps did more to inhibit the rational progress of science than any other person who ever lived.
In the previous chapter 9 it was shown that the Twin Paradox conclusively proved that special relativity was an impossible theory. However, there is an even more positive way to prove that the theory is impossible, simply by showing that the assumptions made in the theory will not produce the results that Einstein assumed they would. This proof is so elementary and obvious that it stuns the mind to realize that not one scientist has ever exposed it in over 100 years.
Perhaps the greatest problem facing the scientific community is the inability to correlate the science of quantum mechanics (QM)?which very accurately explains the nature of fieldforces on the extremely small, subatomic scale?with the pseudo-science of general relativity (GR)?which ostensibly explains the nature of gravitational effects on the extremely large, cosmological scale. Whereas QM assumes that all field-forces on the subatomic scale are generated by the continuous impacts of force-carrying particles called ?bosons? (although bosons have never actually been observed), GR assumes that there are no field-forces of gravity, and that the deflections of moving celestial bodies from straight-line paths when passing a larger gravitational body are not caused by the application of gravitational forces as stipulated by Newton, but are actually caused by the moving bodies traveling straight lines through space that has been curved by the presence of the larger gravitational bodies, thereby causing the straightline paths of the moving bodies to also be curved within the curved space. (For example, the circular path of the moon about the earth is assumed by GR to be a straight line through space that is curved into a circle by the presence of the earth.) GR provides no explanation at all for the physical forces of gravity, as, for example, the forces that are exerted on physical bodies that are at rest and in contact with each other, such as the earth's gravitational force that is exerted on a person standing on a scale.
There is a fundamental fault with special relativity that stems from a misunderstanding of the Fitzgerald and Lorentz contraction phenomena: the phenomena from which all the bizarre concepts of special relativity derive. Once this misunderstanding is cleared up, it can be seen that special relativity has never been anything more than mere speculation: more properly to be consigned to the realm of Alice's Wonderland than to the realm of rational science.