28. CONCLUSION
 
   Few theories and authors have won such fame as the theory of relativity and its author Albert Einstein. It is also difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity.
   It is simply incredible that a theory with so many deceptions has held the attention of so many of physicists and other scientists from the field of natural and technical sciences for so long, and has managed to retain acceptability and even enter the textbooks for secondary schools and universities.
   The acceptance of that theory at the time when it was developed can be somehow understood, since that was a crucial time, when many questions in physics were asked, for which there were no answers.
   The results of Fizeau's test, and later Michelson's experiment, destroyed the old conception of the existence of a cosmic quiescent ether, which also meant the destruction of the foundations on which some great theories of the time had been built. Lorentz also found himself in an unenviable situation, since his Electron theory was based on the existence of an ether.
   To overcome the arisen difficulties, Lorentz gave a hypothesis on the shortening of a body moving through the ether, which is proportional to the coefficient . In accordance with that hypothesis, Lorentz derived the transformation of coordinates, which was later named after him. With this transformation, time and space were made relative and that laid the foundation for the theory of relativity.
   On that foundation Einstein built his special theory of relativity. However, unlike Lorentz, he introduced a new understanding of time and space. According to him, the change in length and time are real physical processes, which occur exclusively as a consequence of motion itself, and not as a consequence of the effect of some ether, which does not exist at all.
   Thus Einstein denied the existence of the ether and allegedly gave answers to some questions, which arose after Fizeau's and Michelson's experiment. Unfortunately, his theory did not give the right answers. It can even be said they were deceptions, as the special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions, which this book has uncovered. It is a failed attempt to build a universal theory on the basis of the known experimental results, which would be, first of all, in accordance with these results.
   The so-called results of the special theory of relativity, that are in fact correct but are reached by incorrect relativistic derivation of equations, where known before the appearance of the special theory of relativity. They are to be found in the work of Lorentz (the longitudinal mass and the transversal mass), Poincare (), Maxwell (), Heaviside and others.
   Einstein's exposition in that theory is ingeniously thought out to deceive and it largely resembles magician's tricks. Thus, for example, when he explains things which are known and clear even to a secondary school student, he is methodical, very clear to the last detail and exhaustive. However, when we look at the text containing a deception, he is complex, confused, incomplete and brief or, alternatively, long-widened. Despite that long-wideness he does not clarify what is unclear, but complicates it further, so that the text becomes even less clear. On the credit of what is clear in Einstein's exposition, the reader accepts the unclear as well, believing it to be true, and thinking it is his fault that he does not understand Einstein, or that it would take a lot more effort to understand him.
   Einstein started his deception right from §1 of his paper on relativity [2], on determining simultaneity, on the basis of the judgement on the synchronized "ticking" of clock in motion. That is the first and the key deception in the special theory of relativity, on the basis of which further deceptions were constructed. Unfortunately, that deception was not spotted, and it even became the subject of serious philosophic discussions.
   The first inconsistency appears in §2 of the same paper, where he uses speed , although he claims with his fundamental postulate that in nature there is no higher speed than the speed of light in vacuum. Inconsistency is an important characteristic of the theory of relativity, although Einstein claims that the theory of relativity is a theory of principles, that is a theory of consistency.
   In §3 he derives transformation of coordinates in a very complex, confused and unclear way, where he also uses expressions and . A complicated way of deriving equations offers great opportunities for deceiving the reader. Thus, with the help of clocks and simultaneity control of their "ticking" in two coordinate systems, which move relatively, a light ray and mathematical operations Einstein derived transformation of coordinates and "proved" not only that the existence of time dilatation and space contraction in mathematical sense, but also that they are real physical processes.
   However, I derived in a simple way a number of transformations of coordinates on the basis of satisfying the requirement for invariability of equations for the propagation of spherical and plane light wave. By using the Lorentz and these transformations, I proved that Einstein's time dilatation and space contractions are just a mathematical game, which has no connection with some real physical process. In connection with that I have demonstrated that the so-called coefficient of the contraction is not but .
   In §5 of the said first paper, the theorem on addition of speeds is derived in an equally complex and unclear way. If it had been derived in a simple and comprehensible way, as has been done in this book, it would have been clear that it was not a case of addition or subtraction of any speeds, but that the formulas of the theorem represent the speed of light wave in a coordinate system at rest, in case of addition of speeds, or in a moving coordinate system, in case of subtraction of speeds. Since the transformation of coordinates was derived with the condition that the speed of propagation of spherical light wave in both systems equals the speed of light, then the alleged sum and difference of speeds must be equal to the speed of light.
   In deriving equations Einstein uses expressions and and he never changes them with , although in his theorem on addition of speeds he says that the sum or the difference of light velocity and some other speed are equal to the velocity of light. Thus, Einstein refutes his own theorem.
   With the help of this theorem he explains the result of Fizeau's experiment, claiming insistently that the result of the experiment confirms the validity of the theory of relativity and that there is no other theory which can explain it. By such a resolute claim, he hides the fact that the formulas of his theorem are derived for the case of vacuum, and that Fizeau's experiment is performed in water. As an outstanding physicist he must have known that, but nevertheless, he uses the formulas, valid for vacuum, for the case of water, in order to prove the correctness of his theory, which says a lot about Einstein's correctness, and the correctness of his theory.
   I derived the equations of the theorem on addition of speeds in moving water in the same way as it was derived for the case of vacuum. By use of those equations I showed that the result of Fizeau's test does not prove the correctness of the theory of relativity, but, on the contrary, refutes it. At the same time the result of the Fizeau's test is explained by use of the new derived equations for the speed of light in moving water.
   In deriving the formulas for the angle of aberration and the Doppler effect, he applies the transformation of coordinates for a spherical light wave on a plane light wave, which is incorrect. The formula for the Doppler effect for the case of moving radiation source, which Einstein gives, is not, and can not be, derived in the relativistic procedure, which also shows the failure of the theory of relativity. Also, according to this equation, the frequency of the radiation increases as the radiation source retreats, which runs counter to observed reality.
   According to the theory of relativity, apart from the longitudinal Doppler effect, there is also the transversal one, which has no bearing on reality. By using new transformations I showed that the relativistic way of determining the Doppler effect represents an interesting mathematical game which can not be logically connected with reality.
   The classical and relativistic explanation of the cause of aberration is disputed and a new explanation is given, which is based upon relative motion of the earth's ether and sun's ether.
   An especially important part of the special theory of relativity is the one which refers to a body's mass and energy and their mutual relation. It is generally believed that the theory of relativity proved itself most convincingly in this sphere. However, nobody has spotted that the failure and weakness of this theory was proved most obviously in this sphere, which is shown in this book.
   Einstein tried to derive the formula for the mass of a moving electron, as well as the formula which determines the relation of mass and energy in his first paper. So, in §10 of that paper, under the title "Dynamics of a (weakly accelerated) electron", Einstein derives in a wrong way, both from mathematical and physical standpoint, wrong formula for transversal mass of an electron and correct formula for longitudinal mass.
   Deriving the equations for the longitudinal and transversal mass of an electron in motion, which are dependent on velocity, Einstein assumes that an electron in motion has only one mass and treats it as a constant magnitude.
   Applying the Lorentz transformation of coordinates to the expressions of the accelerations , and he arrives at equations for the longitudinal and transversal acceleration which he thereafter refers to as equations for longitudinal and transversal mass. In this incorrect mathematical game the concept of acceleration is substituted for the concept of mass which have nothing in common from the viewpoint of physical science.
   The wrong equation for the transversal mass, an incorrect derivation of the equations, the use of very low, non-relativistic velocities in comparison with the speed of light, and the assumption that mass and acceleration are the same thing, all go to show that the equations for the longitudinal and transversal mass of an electron in motion cannot be derived according to correct relativistic procedure.
   The theory of relativity treats the change of the mass of an electron in motion exclusively as a result of relative motion, but not as the result of the physical process caused by motion of an electrically charged particle. In this way the theory ignores the very idea of electromagnetic mass, which is not accepted at all.
   The equation for the kinetic energy of an electron and the equation for the transformation of energy into electromagnetic mass and electromagnetic mass into energy cannot be derived by correct relativistic procedure because the equations for the longitudinal and transversal mass cannot be derived by that procedure either. As a result these equations cannot be considered relativistic, nor they should be connected with the theory of relativity.
   By the way, the equations for the longitudinal and transversal mass of an electron in motion, which are ascribed to Einstein, were in fact derived by Lorentz before the appearance of Einstein's theory of relativity, but on the supposition that the spherical shape of an electron deformed on motion through the ether.
   The formula for the total transformation of mass into energy, , was not nor can it be derived by correct relativistic procedure and should not, therefore, be treated as a relativistic equation or connected with the theory of relativity.
   For a long time it was thought that Einstein derived a complete theorem on the inertia of energy in the article, "Does the inertia of a body depend on the energy contained in it?" However, in 1953, Ives proved that the theorem was incorrectly derived.
   In another article, entitled "The elementary derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy", published in 1946, Einstein derived using incorrect derivation and thus concluded that . It is therefore without foundation to assert that Einstein derived the equation by correct relativistic procedure. In fact it cannot be derived correctly by that procedure. Poincare was the first who derived in implicit form the formula .
   In chapter 23.8 of this book I have derived this equation completely, according to classical procedure. Using that result I also derived completely the equation according to correct and purely classical procedure as shown in chapter 23.9 of this book. In this way I have proved that these two most important equations in the theory of relativity do not belong there and are classical equations.
   The annihilation of the electron and positron is considered to be the most convincing example of the total transformation of mass into energy. In that process the entire mass of the electron, as matter and the entire mass of the positron as antimatter are allegedly transformed into energy in the form of two gamma rays. At the same time, the appearance of electron-positron pairs when matter is irradiated with gamma rays of energy greater than 1.022 MeV is considered to be a convincing example of the transformation of energy into mass.
   In chapter 26, however, it is demonstrated that when electrons and positrons collide they are not annihilated and their mass is not transformed into gamma radiation. A moving electron, as a moving positron, possess kinetic energy. When these particles collide this energy is converted into energy in the form of two gamma rays. From this we must conclude that the positron is not antimatter and that antimatter does not exist. The electron and positron do not disappear on collision, but form a neutral particle. On the irradiation of matter with high energy gamma rays, the bond between the electron and positron is broken and the electron positron pairs appear. Electrons and positrons form the basis of matter, accordingly we should not generalise and assert that .
   Incidentally, Heaviside derived the equation for the mutual relation of energy and mass of an electron at rest correctly, as . The equation is related to the mutual relation of the energy of electromagnetic radiation and the electromagnetic mass ascribed to that energy.
   It is considered that Einstein's findings about the dimensions of the universe, its age and the quantity of matter contained within it are incorrect. In connection to this a new hypothesis is presented to explain the red shift in the spectra of radiation from distant galaxies. This hypothesis counteracts the theory that the universe was born in a big bang and that it is expanding. On the basis of this hypothesis the phenomenon of cosmic rays of enormous energies is explained, as well as the origin of primary cosmic rays.
   De Broglie's hypothesis about the wave nature of particles only makes sense for electrically charged particles. The wavelength of the wave accompanying the moving charged particle is in reverse proportion to the energy expended in causing the particle to move, and is subject to Plank's law . De Broglie's wavelength, which accompanies the electron in motion, is not however in accordance with this law. The energy of de Broglie's wave is greater than the energy expended to generate that wave. This fact, in some way, denies the existence of de Broglie's wave.
   Finally we must pose the question of the acceptability of the general theory of relativity. The short answer is as follows: The general theory of relativity can be judged on the basis of this book and on Einstein's own statement, "the general theory of relativity is based on the special theory of relativity" [A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 228-229, 1954. (Article "What is the theory of relativity?", published in "Times" from 12.11.1919.)].
 
home