Einstein’s Incorrect Use of the Lorentz Factor

                                                                    By Infinite Solutions

This paper is based on the paper written by Albert Einstein on June 30, 1905 which is entitled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”.

There are at least 2 ways that we can represent the Lorentz Factor. The 2 ways that I would like to present the factor in this paper are as follows:

 

1/√(1-v^2/c^2)                  OR                 c/√((c-v)(c+v))                

Let’s use the expression:   c/√((c-v)(c+v))  in our analysis.

Einstein claims that nothing with mass can possibly travel faster than the speed of light, and he adheres to the principle of the constancy of the speed of light. He also believes that the Lorentz Factor is a fact of physics. The goal of this paper is to highlight the fact that according to Einstein, the expressions (c-v) and (c+v) have no place in his universe, and thus we must conclude have no real meaning in the Lorentz Factor. They actually produce non-existent values if you abide by the constraints, which he labels “postulates”, as presented in the beginning of his paper. Since the Lorentz Factor is a foundational factor in the development of Einstein’s relativity theories, a closer inspection into the use of the Lorentz Factor will be performed in order to assist with the validation of these so-called theories.

 The expressions (c-v) and (c+v) are definitely 2 forms of expressing a speed that is relative to the speed of light. The expression (c-v) represents a speed that is less than the speed of light, when the velocity of the object exists, and exceeds zero. On the other hand, the expression (c+v) represents a speed that is greater than the speed of light, when the velocity of the object exists, and exceeds zero. In Einstein’s universe, the expression (c-v) has meaning, but the expression (c+v) is absolutely meaningless, due to the fact that nothing in Einstein’s universe can possibly fulfill that expression. Einstein forces the Lorentz Factor to become meaningless because he transforms one of the expressions in the factor into a meaningless expression (i.e. – “c+v”). Thus, the Lorentz Factor cannot be used in any of the derivations of Einstein’s equations/theories, in which the objective is to derive a physical reality from a mathematical expression. The mathematical expression (c+v), which signifies some value which is greater than “c”, represents in a physical sense an object or particle with a speed that is greater than the speed of light. By introducing this mathematical expression into the derivation of physical theories or equations, Einstein is in essence introducing a violation into his theories.  In the case of relativity, if any object even moves in Einstein’s universe, that movement violates the principles that are the foundation of his theories on relativity. Any (c+v) where “v” produces any movement at all, places Einstein’s thoughts in violation with Einstein’s beliefs. This is indeed a paradox that requires some explaining, since we live in a universe in which movement is a must.

The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is a principle that goes against the current of our physical understanding. Einstein wrote in his paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” that “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity C which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body”. If we were to pick the case of a beam of light travelling along the same axis as the object in question, and if we were to view the expressions (c-v) and (c+v) as vector quantities, a very interesting light then shines on the use of the Lorentz Factor by Einstein. In the case above, the expression (c-v) can be represented in vector form as:   c àßv, and the expression (c+v) can be represented in vector form as:   cààv. In the special case where a beam of light is travelling along the same axis as the object in question, one can clearly see how this representation is in direct violation of the principle of the constancy of the speed of light – the velocity of the object is additive to the speed of light, as is the case with the expression (c+v). The expression (c+v) is just showing the additive nature of the scalar values of “c” and “v”, with an equivalent direction being implied. It is very interesting that the denominator of the Lorentz Factor contains 2 expressions that contradict the very principle that Einstein built his theories upon, and which clearly denote a variance of the speed of light. It is also interesting to note that one of those expressions “i.e. – (c+v)” also contradicts his conjecture that nothing with mass could possibly travel faster than the speed of light. We find that there are some very clear contradictions to Einstein’s beliefs inherent in the Lorentz Factor itself. How such a Factor could possibly be used as a basis for any relativity theories is conceivable, but just not for any relativity theories presented by Albert Einstein. This is because the conjectural “givens” that Einstein includes in the beginning of his paper is in direct violation of some of the expressions in the Lorentz Factor.

Are we to use mathematical expressions that convey a meaningless physical reality in our physical derivations or equations? I don’t believe that we should do that because it then forces us to hold to some other physical reality that may not match the physical reality that we live in. Once we use those bogus factors and equations as the foundation of other derivations and equations, we find that we are verifying a bogus notion with another bogus notion. That type of practice leads many into a deep ditch that they then find difficult to dig out of, or in some cases, never even realize that they are stuck in a ditch. That is the place where theoretical physicists now find themselves. The theory of everything (TOE) will forever be beyond their reach, just as a jigsaw puzzle can never be completely solved if an edge piece is placed in the middle, and never moved to the edge. Are Einstein’s theories valid if based on a factor that contains expressions that are not even allowed in Einstein’s universe? If the foundation is faulty, and the inspectors come to check the foundation, what should they then do when they indeed conclude that the foundation is faulty? I say that they should move the edge piece from the middle of the jigsaw puzzle, over to the edge, and then maybe they will be able to find their TOE.

In light of a loose fibre optic cable . . .

Now that we see that a loose fibre optic cable can cause a 60 nanosecond fluctuation in a standard calculation, it is probably time to decide if the cosmic speed limit is indeed fact or fantasy. I understand that if you are a theoretical physicist, you have a vested interest in believing that the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit. There is just too much at stake. The foundation of your understanding of the physical universe would crumble if the speed of light were not the cosmic speed limit for anything that has mass. If the speed of a photon is not the ultimate speed of any mass in this universe, it would mean "back to school" for many a tenured professor.

It has been surmised that a possible explanation for the 60 nanosecond miscalculation could be due to a loose fibre optic cable. Once the loose cable is tightened, the foundation of many in the physics world of higher learning then becomes quite firm and reliable again. This could be the case for another 100 plus years. I would imagine that that would be the hope of many.

I am one who believes that the 60 nanosecond discrepancy has nothing at all to do with a loose fibre optic cable, but everything to do with the selection of the Lorentz Factor as the building material. If the wrong building material is selected, the foundation can fail. In my opinion, Einstein's foundation of physics is quite faulty, and time will definitely tell us exactly that. In the meantime, tighten those cables or go back to school.

Is the cosmic speed limit fact or fantasy?

Most experts in the field of physics (theoretical, particle, etc.) believe that there exists in this universe a cosmic speed limit, in which nothing with mass can possibly travel faster than the speed of light. I understand that the belief they hold is based on the Lorentz factor, which has a singularity built into the factor. I am one who does not support the practice of applying a mathematical expression, with an inherent singularity to a physics expression. This automatically forces either an infinite situation, or an undefined situation. That then forces one to make a philosophical choice between infinite and undefined. A philosophical choice should never be introduced into the realm of physics, but it had been introduced very successfully, over 100 years ago.

More than 100 years have passed, and we are still preaching the same "cosmic speed limit" gospel, as though that gospel came down from a mountaintop, inscribed on tablets of stone. On September 23, 2011, the stone tablet that holds the inscription of the century old gospel suddenly developed cracks. Unfortunately for the followers of this gospel, the cosmic speed limit was broken by a neutrino, and no infinite mass was observed. Fortunately for us the infinite mass was not a reality, because we just can't afford to have any particle take over all of the mass that could possibly exist in our universe of finite mass. On November 18, 2011, it was announced that repeated tests produced the very same results. The neutrinos still travelled faster than the cosmic speed limit. I believe that it is Einstein who is credited with one definition of the word insanity which states: "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results". I see that some particle physicists are now stuck in an interesting game of insanity. They are expected to do the same thing over and over again, even thousands of times, and expect different results. They are even asking the international particle physics community to join in with the insanity, and prove that you can do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results. I believe that it is time for the open scientists to take a stab at this one. Exactly what would be the "cosmic cop" to enforce such a speed limit, and exactly how would this enforcer perform its duties? How would the condition of infinite mass be approached, or even achieved for any object that has mass in this universe? How is that game, even played?

As you can see, I do not subscribe to this gospel, and feel that it is time for an open science review of this theory. What do you think?