By Ove Tedenstig, Sweden may 1999

( some revised text from earlier publications)

Einstein's theory of relativity is said to be science in its true meaning, but is defended by its supporters by unscientific methods. Therefore, for legitimation, he has developed a kind of system or method, making it possible for him to in every thinkable situation of external criticism, defending it or rejecting it as ignorance or just ill will.

Besides learning the relativistic dogmas, a convinced supporter of the theory of relativity must learn the most effective way of neutralizing the criticism. Methods used are, as to mention some of them, to put the opponents scientific competence into question, and from time to time even put his honorable intentions and moralistic honesty into question. And therefore, to discuss the theory with a convinced supporter of the theory, often is a depressing and hopeless task which seldom leads to any clarifying conclusions. A debate with a convinced relativist may look as follows, usually following a predestinated pattern: 

At start, the debate uses to be rather calm and silence. The relativist want to make sense of being an objective and serious scientist. But in a later stage, when he/she discover that his opponent not is so easy to convince, he start changing his attitude and his argumentation, being more aggressive. His arguments begin being more and more apart from science and he begin to use subjective and unjust argumentation.

Einstein's theory is founded on two basic postulates, that of the constant propagation of light, used as a universal, common reference, together with the postulate that all physical laws are the same in all inertial systems, moving with constant, linear velocity.

The opponent (O): Is it true that these two postulates are enough as base for the whole theory building?

The relativist (R): Yes, it's so. They are fully enough. It was Einstein's genius to in this way succeeded to simplify physics. However, in the general theory it was added another postulate, that of the equivalence between heavy and inertial mass, the theory was in this way done complete.

(O) : How can you so sure about that ? Several experiments with light, which have been performed during periods of many centuries, like as well can be interpreted in other ways, namely that light velocity according to the emission theories, show that light only is invariant in relation to its source but not in free space. Hence, isn't possible that only is a question of how you like to interpret an experiment, just in this way which you prefer and which belongs to your personal favorite theory?

(R): That is wrong! No experiments have violated the relativistic postulate!

(O): In my opinion, I mean that it was a very strange and farfetched idea to use the light velocity in vacuum as a common reference parameter for all processes and all movements taking place in universe. What have the free velocity of light to do with other kinds of physical processes taking place in matter? If one had made use of the standard velocity of light as measured for sources in rest and observers in rest, there had been no problem, OK, so it had been not much to discuss about. But by the done definition, a lot of very strange pseudo effects have arisen, where scientists are believing able to explain things in physics which has nothing to do with light propagation or how it behave in free space.

(R) : It's very easy to do that , no velocity between two relative moving systems can be larger than , c , and the velocity of light is always equal to , c, in all systems and between all systems. And beside that, un-regarding how much you accelerate, you never can exceed, c, the light velocity in space. And because of these facts about how nature really behave, we have the fully right to talk about velocity as we do.

(R) : In that case the rocket mass will increase, and when reaching equal or near the light velocity this mass will be so large that the rocket motor not is able to accelerate further. Einstein constructed an addition formula which in fact showed that it will be in this way. In fact.

(O): Of course, it's so. But that is quite another experimental situation compared with our space rocket. The space rocket move in the free space, interacting with nothing, the particle is situated and driven forward with an external electromagnetic field which interact and influence the particle. The rocket is accelerating itself by mass inertial forces from the inside motor, the particle is accelerated by a field from outside, presumably adding mass to the accelerated particle. Furthermore, the mass increasing phenomenon was not predicted by any relativity theory, but was discovered by experiment so early as 1901 and theoretical suggestions of the reason to this phenomenon also was given at this time. Hence, there are very good reasons to assume that the mass increasing phenomenon has nothing with relativity theory to do at all.

(R): Mass increase when accelerating particles in particle accelerators is one of the strongest evidence on that the relativity theory works and is true. No matter what you say about it.

(R) : Oh yes, the effects are real and is a part of the normal physical world which we live in. Einstein, as the genius he was, showed that nothing around us is of an absolute nature, but woven together by time, space and movement as integrated parts which we not are able to separate from each other .

(O) : Einstein suggested in his original theory from 1905, the special theory, that a watch placed out on the earth equator, would go slower compared with a similar, synchronized clock placed out on the pole. The reason for it should be that the pole clock was more in rest than the equator clock. Einstein also gave a quantitative value of that time dilation and a calculation showed a value of several micro seconds each year. But no such effect has ever been observed or registered, that in spite of access to extreme sensible watches and detectors now available. How can you explain that?

(R) : Ok, it's true that no such effect has been observed, but the time dilation effect is only observable in systems which are moving with constant, linear velocity and being not influenced by any gravitational field. The earth rotates, hence the equator clock moves in circles and the earth has gravitation. Hence, not being any relativistic system. But in his general theory from 1916, Einstein solved this problem where he also took consideration to the acceleration of mass, as well as also the gravitational effect on the clocks.  

(O): Oh, indeed ! Then I'm curious of why Einstein already in his special theory from 1905, not taking consideration to mass and gravitation effects, suggested this time dilation effect when there were no conditions present for satisfying this prediction? Einstein very well did know that the equator clock moved in circles by the earth's rotation and that the clocks involved were affected by the earth's gravitational field. And another question, of what reason was the pole clock regarded as more in rest (more stationary) than the pole clock? Strictly relativistic, no one of these clocks have the right to be more or less in rest, no one of the clocks where more static than the other.

(R) : Surely, even Einstein had his fully rights to be wrong but also having chance of developing and improving his theory later, that in the same way as how other scientists work, theories are developed and improved as time goes by. Regarding the question which clock which would be regarded as being in more rest, is decided by whom are the observer. It is always the observer in the other system who "believe" that the clock in the other system goes slow. That's even true for the observer at the position of the polar clock.  

(R) : The effect is real, one have transported atomic clocks in aeroplanes around the earth and it was shown that the theory was correct. A time dilation effect was registered in the air born clocks. It has also been observed that short lived particles live longer if they move very fast.

(O): Surely, but what has these physical observations of particles with relativity to do? Atomic particles are not clocks and not any watches. And what regards the aeroplanes, they were moving in circles around the earth and were effected by the earth's gravitational field, hence two factors which inhibit application of the relativity theory, hence the same problem as why not Einstein's original suggestion of the polar clocks not worked. And further more, if clocks go fast or slow is easy to control afterwards by registering time in electronic registers, hence by no aid of human, subjective observers. Today are used electronic digital counters which with very high precision can register the number of "ticks" as well as also the time difference between successive "ticks" (the time intervals). What subjective registering human observers have to say is of no scientific interest.

(R): No. it's not so, it's not the number of "ticks" but their length !!!!

(R) : Space experiments have been performed which clearly show that time dilation is a real effect. Space trips to the planet of Venus showed on several milliseconds in dilation effect.

(O) : Ok, if so, which clock was going slow, that clock attached to the space sond or that clock staying on the earth ? And, in case some of these clocks were more slow than the other, what was the physical reason for it ? No one of these two systems (the space sond system or the earth system have the privilege of being more stationary than the other system, that in accord with the theory's own, basic postulates?

(R) : It's fully clear, that you not want or not are able to understand relativity theory. As I all the time clearly have pointed out, everything depends on from which system you are observing the clocks, inside your own system or from outside, that's all.

 LENGTHS CONTRACTION

(O): But that seems to be some kind of a reciprocal way to proof things. According to established and accepted methods in physics (the scientific method), zero results in experiments never are proofs of anything, only experiments which produces real results differing from zero registrations are regarded as physical relevant results.

(R) : Length contraction is only real for an observer who is situated in another system, in the same way as for the time dilation effect. Hence, an observer in another system apprehend the measuring rod shortened, compared with its own rod.

(O): Yes, but again, then it's a pure imaginary effect in the same way as for the time dilation as discussed above? An observer experiences or believe that an object is shortened in the other system. Then the same thing must be valid for the observer in the other system, and then the effect is symmetrical in this way the theory claim. So, what's the meaning by that?

(R) : No, that's wrong, the effect is real, but it depends on who is the observer. It's only an outer observer who "apprehend" or "believe" that the object is shortened, but real for him, of course !

(O): Hmm.... now introducing mathematics into the discussion we shall be careful with. A theory which has so simple basic assumptions and so clear basic postulates, at the first hand shall be able to be analyzed pure verbally. OK, now the question again, if length contraction is real, in which system is the contraction occurring? If not any special, system can be pointed out, then what is the meaning by the length contraction concept at all? And of what reason will not objects be shortened? And how shall an object "know" when to change its length and in relation to what? The world around the object is full of different other objects moving with all velocities and in all directions. Which references shall be used? And were in the universe are this knowledge which intermediate this super message to all moving bodies?

(R) : It's fully clear that you have grasped nothing and perhaps not either is willing to understand and learn anything at all. So, I think there is no big meaning to try explaining things for you. The basic presumption to understand is as always, the willingness to understand and it seems you are lacking it completely!

(R) : The paradox is not any paradox, its simply evil talk by them who not understand the theory or just ill will from persons who want to put Einstein's authority into question, both as human being and as scientist ! It's namely so, that you have to select between accelerated and non-accelerated systems, it's there the imaginary paradox is. So, the twin travelling case can be cleared up within the framework of the special theory, all in accord with Einstein's initial suggestions.

(O): So you mean, the reason to the effect would be caused by that one of the system have been effected by a larger degree acceleration, and of that reason physical effect would go slower into this system. OK, that's a thought, but how does that agree with Einstein's original idea? In these formulae which treat the time dilation, there are nothing appearing which remind about acceleration of physical objects having mass, just the relative velocity between systems are the only deciding factor. If acceleration were effecting the time, this parameter would be included into the time dilation formula. It's not so! For me it seems clear that this explanation is an after reconstruction, aimed to save the theory from a serious criticism or pure disaster. And, perhaps it's even so, that not either this argument holds for a serious confirmation. And another thing, you can never be sure of that an assumed acceleration not is a retardation. It depends on which system you relate to. Let me give an example: Assume both systems move in a common direction related to an outer point. Then, if you give energy to one of these systems, this system will be retarded or accelerated in relation to another external system. You never know or never can define if a system will be more or less accelerated. And in another situation you can imagine that both twins start at the same time and with equal acceleration, but in opposite directions. In this case the travel situation will be the same for both the twin brothers (completely symmetrical) and no time dilation effects can be motivated for. So, it seems that the theory has serious holes which not are covered here?

(R): It's possibly also so, that everything depends on you, that you not want to understand relativity.

(R): Obviously it's so, that special persons not are mentally able to understand relativity theory, so obviously there are no great idea to proceed this discussing, and you not seems to want understand, either.

(O) :Hmm... then we are there again ! I'm always suspicious against mathematical abstractions before we verbally have analyzed the concepts properly. My question was, which physical effects or reasons exist to that the wavelength is changed? In the ether model, it's easy to understand, but in the model lacking the ether it seems impossible because the light velocity not is affected by any movements, at source or observer. It seems not plausible that the light wavelength is changed only by reason that an observer look at it. Light is a free physic phenomenon or process in space and cannot be affected only by reason that someone look at it. And beside that, the world is full of observers. Perhaps, it would be possible to construct some smart formula, describing it, but not explaining it.

(R): Light is an electromagnetic wave, creating its own ether! Hence the ether is there but not just this ether you think on. The modern science has solved this problem, there is not much to discuss further.

 MEASUREMENT OF LIGHT VELOCITY

(R): The light velocity is always measured as constant, it's not much to discuss about. It's tiresome to all the time be confronted with all your thought experiments. And it makes no sense and is only a waste of time to all the time trying to find errors in Einstein's theories. All experiments show that the light velocity in vacuum is the same in all systems. I just note that you are completely unwilling, or perhaps also unable, to understand relativity, and beside that, you are unwilling to learn this special kind of mathematics which is needed to understand it. With your attitude, it's not so meaningful to proceed the discussion further.

(In this situation the relativist begin being some impatient and desperate, because he not has succeeded to convince his refractory debater and opponent. Now, the situation begin to be some critical, and now it's the proper time to put the opponent's, personal, intellectual and mental abilities into question. In this situation, the relativist is making clear, that not all human beings are so clear and bright minded that they can understand this wonderful theory. And beside that, peoples using the theory must have the correct education, especially in mathematics and logical training. Hence, you must understand the complicated and wonderful mathematics used , "No entrance for no mathematicians" ! And now, if any other further personal weaknesses can be found on the opponent, it's suitable time to point out them now. Hit these things into his head as often you can and finding it suitable. And if the opponent have own ideas about how tings are or might be, explain for him how meaningless these ideas are, the great master of physics , Albert Einstein and his followers already have solved, explained and discovered everything for you. Stop thinking yourself! Start believing! And if the alternative ideas seems good, tell him that common sense not always is to trust on, which means, you shall not trust on your intellectual ability or intentions. A blind faith is to be recommended.

At this point of the debate, the discussion rapidly degenerate to a pure philosophical debate about most everything, which comfortably remove the convinced relativist from the subject which was originally discussed, the logical and scientific content of Einstein's relativity theory.

The questions remain unanswered, running out in the sand, and after a time and at another time or circumstances, it will blow up again in a steadily, circulating and tiresome debate with no end and with no meaning. All the put questions will stay unanswered as before.

In this situation, the relativist feel strong and convinced in his faith, and in accord with his own views, he has won the fight. By in a clever way maked use of the whole arsenal of unclear and diffuse arguments, he has been able to ward off the most threatening attacks. The opponent has not succeeded to knock him on any critical point, as he see it, and he has been able to give answers on all questions, all in accord with the rule book. All the time he has delivered answers on the questions and he has not been forced to confess any weaknesses. That's the most important thing for him, to retire with his honour intact and not in any occasion losing his face. If the theory he has defended so intensively, is true or not, does not worry him so much, it's a minor problem.

( The end )