Abstract

Suspicions are raised by the fact that neither Einstein nor anyone else ever used again his 1905 "proof' of the Lorentz transformations. Why? It and the rest of this paper have many defects: (1) sloppiness in use of symbols, (2) the integration of a numerical equation [!], (3) commission of a "dualistic sin" (Einstein's own words); the theory really needs three postulates, (4) length (space) contraction having the same ad hoc character as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. (5) logical flaws invalidating the claim of relative simultaneity between relatively moving observers, in section 2. (6) in Section 3, Einstein's transferal to the transverse light ray what he had deduced only for the longitudinal light ray. involving a mathematical contradiction. (7) variables x, t, etc. being referred at first to a "light path" (x=ct). but then later. without any justiflcatt'On. being generalized to apply to any mechanical object or event whatsoeVer, (8) employing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (reification)-e.g. treating time and space like substantive entities. (9) subordinating physical causes to the postulational method used in mathematics. and (10) claiming that physical objects can have different real lengths or ages, depending on the speed of the observer, thus violating the objective identity ofsuch objects.

Further crucial objections to special relativity and its interpretations include: (II) wrongly believing that E=mc² was the essential basis for the atomic bomb, (12) wrongly believing that atomic energy comes from mass transmutation into energy, (13) Einstein's fallacious derivation of E=mc²". in which he begged the question, and (14) ignoring several physical phenomena-Doppler effects. Sagnac and GPS effects, stellar aberration, unipolar induction, etc.-that are not symmetric and so require a preferred frame of reference. which Einstein's equivalence principle and relativistic electrodynamics do not allow.