Kuntz, Lasker

Professor Dr. J. Le Roux @ Rennes

The Bankruptcy Of Relativity Theory

(Translated by Dr. E. Ruckhaber)

1. Einstein’s Relativity created a lively intellectual movement and prompted various theoretical and experimental researches which have contributed to the advancement of science.

However, the theory in itself does not stand up to thorough scrutiny. In the light of criticism it becomes clear that the given synthesis is an empty semblance that can only be preserved in a favorable, protective semi-darkness.

The connectedness of the arguments and the childlike nature of the hypotheses are of the same kind.

The inferences sometimes have no relation to the premises, the basic components of the calculations assume a meaning that does not correspond to the definition in the underlying data.

One could perhaps point out the methodological flaws if the results brought real progress to our knowledge. Unfortunately this is not the case. One or the other of the results obtained are independent of theory and cannot in any way serve to support it.

Special Relativity originated from the Michelson experiment.

• But Einstein did not understand how to properly analyze the results of this experiment.

He drew conclusions from them which they in fact do not imply. He then tried to explain these conclusions by means of a series of hypotheses that contradict each other and have no relation to the phenomenon!

The theory of gravity is also very strange. But here, in addition to the lack of ability, there is the enormous dupery in the alleged explanation of the secular progression of the perihelion movementof Mercury. The observed secular forward motion is approximately 374 “.

Einstein’s theory gives a displacement of approximately 42” from Newton’s on the basis of current findings, explains this forward movement up to 336 “.

In order to deduce from this the superiority of Einstein’s doctrine, something more is necessary than the most blind and abnormal compliance.

The impotence of Relativity in this regard is due to its entire composition.

It takes its own principle as its starting point by undertaking material movements through geodetic measurements in the form of quadratic differentials with four variables, represented by spacetime with four dimensions. This hypothesis contradicts gravity.

The attempts of mathematicians, who are more conscientious than clear-sighted, to reconcile logically incompatible things, have necessarily failed and will continue to fail.

In the 15 years or so since the General RTH was established, it was impossible to derive from it an approximate representation of the movement of the solar system or any other system. The promises made are not kept, this is a significant failure.

2. The Michelson experiment

From the Michelson experiment, Relativity concludes that the relative light propagation speed for the observer is the same in all directions.

This conclusion is incorrect. The isotropy of the interference wave does not include that of the propagation wave in itself 1 ).

One can only conclude from this that the means in which the light spreads, aether or otherwise, is homogeneous and isotropic only under certain conditions with respect to a given reference system.

If one admits that the ether is influenced by the force of gravity, even the law of propagation can satisfy the following conditions:

• a) There is a reference system S in such a way that the means of propagation is homogeneous and isotropic with respect to S in every region remote from the material masses.

• b) For every light source that is invariably bound to the same reference system, the interference wave is isotropic in a specific area.

• c) For every light source bound to a material mass and carried along by it, the interference wave is also isotropic in a special area.

There are an infinite number of solutions whose common properties are easy to determine. The exact analysis of the phenomenon does not permit the strange conclusions which form the basis of special relativity.

The very precise results of Miller’s new experiments are of the greatest interest because they can help us to exercise the influence of the getting to know matter on the conditions of the propagation of light

3. The relativistic explanation of the Michelson experiment

Having drawn incorrect conclusions from the Michelson experiment, the relativistic school tries to explain it. Since the partial derivative equation for the propagation of the waves does not hold up for the analytic transformation, which is a rectilinear uniform translation, one changes the meaning of the words. The transformation by Voigt-Lorentz, which retains the analytical form of the equation in question, is baptized with the name “translation”.

This is ridiculous sleight of hand. Translation is one thing, Voigt-Lorentz transformation is another.

There is a group of translations like there is a Voigt-Lorentz group. The two groups each have their own area and specific meaning in mathematics. Since these are matters of definition, they cannot be confused.

In order to use the Voigt-Lorentz group, Einstein assumes two reference systems; each of them is assigned an observer equipped with a full set of measuring instruments and timers. Each of the two carries out the length measurements in his own system, namely by shifting the scales according to the methods of Euclidean geometry. The observer and the objects have permanent existence and can even, it is said, pass from one system to another. Finally, the relationship between the coordinates of one and the same event point related to both systems using the formulas of Lorentz.

One notices immediately that these hypotheses have nothing in common with the conditions prevailing in the Michelson experiment, where there is only a single observer who neither has to measure his timer nor determine the numerical value of the speed of light.

4. Incompatibility of Einstein’s requirements. But even more: Einstein’s hypotheses are themselves logically incompatible with one another.

Two systems with variables S (x, y, z, t) and S ‘(x ’, y’, z ’, t’) may correspond to one another according to Lorentz’s formulas. Should a point in the. System S ‘be fixed, so x’, y ‘, z’ must be constant, while t’ remains arbitrary. The equation which determines t’ then plays no role.

Under these circumstances, all points bound to S ’suffer a straight, uniform translation with respect to S; but the variables x ’, y’, z ’do not mean Cartesian right-angled coordinates in the sense of S. The same obviously applies if one assumes x, y, z fixed and t as arbitrary.

Einstein did not differentiate between the fixed instantaneous values and the variable arbitrary values of t and t ’ between a permanent object and a momentary event. Now, however, the observers, their yardsticks and timepieces must be viewed as permanent things in the system to which they are bound.

According to one of Einstein’s basic hypotheses regarding the length measures in one of the systems, two identical objects that lie in the same system are related to one another by means of a Euclidean transformation made on the variables of this system.On the other hand, according to the hypotheses made, the observers, the yardsticks and the timepieces are mutually related from one system to the other. All of these assumptions would require that the transformation of a Euclidean substitution by means of a Lorentz transformation still remains a Euclidean substitution - which is not the case. Einstein’s interpretation of the Lorentz group thus encounters a logical contradiction. The entire special RTH rests on this fragile foundation.