Relativity and the process
Dennis Kean
The truth about Special Relativity is disturbing. It is an elegant solution to a difficult problem, which had its roots in the days of Michelson and Morley. The question of space, its composition and its viability as a medium through which light propagates was on the minds of many great students of science of that day. The idea of Ether was rejected in Michelson and Morley's famous experiment, but as that question was answered, a more profound question arose. Ether or aether being gone people could not understand how a wave could propagate through space at the same speed in all directions. Light traveling at the same speed in all directions was an unexpected realization. To those who were familiar with the details and implications of Ether, this experiment augmented the complexity. Enter Einstein.
The history of Einstein's contribution is well documented and we do not need to discuss it here. What we are interested in understanding is the process via which Einstein reasoned out his problems in physics. I remember a young friend of mine who while studying for a degree in Astrophysics proudly informed me that Einstein arrived at some of his conclusions empirically. Then he developed the math for it. There is probably not much wrong with that as long as one arrives at the ultimate solution in the end. Others use the deductive reasoning avenue to do their research. Einstein and his process come with a twist, however. The trouble with Einstein's method is that he started his process of research knowing the goal and working his way backward he force fitted his equations downward in order to derive what he wanted. When things did not fit he took up a mathematical sledgehammer and hammered it away until it fit. If the concept of time, space stood in his way, he challenged them and applied math to force them into subjections. Math coupled with a good story can go a long way to keep the critic off the back, but it cannot last forever.
The axioms of reality meant little to Einstein. Strangely enough, many credit Einstein for challenging the axioms of time, space and mass constancy. To them, it was a sign of great genius to dare and shake the pillars of reality and I must agree that such an approach can be quite useful in research. The idea was radical, indeed, but this admiration was devoid of realization of the implications. As it turned out, Einstein's SR equations were adequate only for a one level calculation. Unlike Newton's equation of gravity and the equations for static electricity and magnetism, Einstein's calculations could only do one hop. You could only make a single translation of frames and the new frame then becomes useless. If you tried to solve the problem on the previous page, you realized that the twin brother on the earth would only age about five weeks according to the traveling twin's calculations. That is about 100 times less than what NASA calculated. The tragedy is that few and especially those educated in the field understand why this is so.
The truth was that Einstein's genius was not that he discovered the right way to solve the problems facing physics of that day, but that he was able to sell this idea to others. The rest of the scientific community was leaning heavily on the process of derivation through deductive reasoning working toward the goal. That road is harder to trod, yet more secure and accurate.
Space curvature, time dilation, mass variability whatever else, was fair game to Einstein and he used it effectively. When he could not express it in mathematical equations history tells us that he hired mathematicians to help him plug the leaks. (Einstein was bad in math.) Sadly, this process is not very different from a criminal being interrogated at the police station making up stories to create an imaginary reality. Math, like stories, can be used to bridge all sorts of anomalies, to a point. The story works until someone smart enough is able to juxtapose all the elements and deduce that it does not really work in the global picture.
I cannot allege that Einstein was dishonest in his quest. It is very likely that he did not understand the process himself. He did not see that a solid connection to the body of knowledge about physics, of his day, could not be made that way. The underlying mechanism needed to be understood. A distortion of an axiom like time causes the entire complex of our reality to wobble and even the most astute student of physics is thrown into an intellectual recursion or vortex from which the only escape may seem to be submission. Dealing with it in detail is way beyond the scope of a student trying to pass an exam and the fact that the theory seems to have empirical support is sufficient to suppress verification! Yet, Einstein introduced 4 different distortions of the fundamental axioms of our physical reality, and the massive complexity overwhelmed the student of physics for years. Understanding how the formulas could be used to solve the problems of light propagation and gravity was hard enough. Once these were mastered, the thought of inspecting SR and GR via careful elemental deductive processes is far from the mind of those who graduate with a physics, astrophysics or related degree. In fact most graduate students will openly admit that they are not fit to discuss the issues of SR and GR, while others hang on to the illusion that empirical evidence proves that Einstein's equations are adequate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Those who insist on having a clear insight of the internal mechanics, however, face a challenge of such stupendous proportions that only rock headed individuals would be foolish enough to buck the system and disagree. One of the obstacles to overcome is the mere mind bending complexity of Einstein's SR and GR via the internal mechanics. Studying and understanding the equations is hard enough, but it pales in comparison to the detailed verification of internal mechanics, which test its viability. To get over this heap a good half of the students life is gone and the zest to evangelize that which one may suspect as wrong is greatly diffused.
A few, however find a small reserve left to walk beyond that mount Everest, but then they face an even greater obstacle. Preaching to the elite community of science that their [the community's] studies, for which they [the community] have studied so much make no real sense, is a career suicide mission in progress! Such individuals are ostracized as maniacs and berated as second class citizens of the science community, no matter how brilliant they may be. It is common practice not to dignify them with an answer, no matter how much sense they may make. The reality is that those who are able to overcome these two obstacles are special people, but their future and prospects in the sciences are dim.
With these obstacles on the road to progress, the prospect of working out the details of light propagation and gravity is not bright. I hope that my contribution will serve to simplify the task of reducing SR to a level where the mind can operate without dizziness. Trying to reason out a complex problem while the ground is wobbling in strange incomprehensible ways is not a walk in the park. SR and GR are not the right answer though they have been quite useful to expand our view of the world. SR is a worthy attempt to explain why light travels at the speed of light in all directions, but there are other models, which can do that as well, whose equations do not dead end. Unfortunately, we are far in the future and the original error, which contributed to this confusion, is far in the past and it will take a radical reformation to eradicate the nonsense.