A discussion of one expert’s critique of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, his attempts to find a better way to describe motion in the universe, comments on the need to distinguish science from philosophy, and a caution not to extrapolate moral relativism from scientific relativity.
By Mark D. Harris, MD, MPH, MBA, MDiv, ThM, PhD, DBA
When a Swiss patent clerk named Albert Einstein (1879-1955) published his papers on Special Relativity and General Relativity, his ideas took the world by storm. Combined with the work of Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Charles Darwin (1809-1882), and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Einstein’s theories described in On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (1905) and The Field Equations of Gravitation (1915) attacked the Christian foundation of Western culture. The idea was that if space, time, and energy were relative, morality must be too. Einstein strenuously denied that his work had any moral implications, but self-serving men used it to justify their desires.[1]
For almost 120 years after Einstein wrote, scientists and mathematicians have examined his work and found it useful in explaining the physical world. Many modern accomplishments in space exploration, and related technologies such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), have been made possible by the ideas generated by special and general relativity. Einstein’s twin theories of Special and General Relativity have become sacrosanct in modern science, untouchable by any serious investigator. As a result, his views and the ideological baggage attributed to them were unchallenged.
Fake Science
A widespread weltanschauung (worldview) in the modern era is that everything is relative, from science to morality. This belief is philosophic and ideological, not scientific, but proponents of moral relativism have used Einstein’s scientific relativity theories to imply that moral relativity is proved by science. In a thousand ways, moral relativists have dressed their philosophies in a patina of science.
Interestingly, philosophies and personal preferences that pretend to be proven by science are resistant to being disproved even when the underlying science is shown to be false. Eugenics is the “practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population’s genetic composition.”[2] In the early 20th century, eugenics was lauded as being scientific and Darwinian. Eugenics was considered just another example of “survival of the fittest.” When the Third Reich began taking eugenics to its logical conclusions, the horror of eugenics became clear. Nonetheless, eugenic practices such as forced sterilization, racially motivated use of birth control, and sex-selective abortions persist.
The Evaluation
Arthur Densmore is a PhD senior electrical engineer for General Dynamics, a teacher at Cal State University in Long Beach, the founder of United Research, and an old high school friend. His paper, Unified Relativity, challenges some of Einstein’s conclusions in special relativity and postulates some very old conclusions. This article will discuss Dr. Arthur Densmore’s approach to special relativity, the possible role of aether in addressing some of the shortcomings of special relativity, and some differences between science and philosophy. A detailed discussion of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is outside the scope of this work.
The Theory of Special Relativity
To understand Einstein’s theory, we must discuss the key postulates of special relativity:
- The laws of physics do not vary in all frames of reference (without acceleration).
- The speed of light is the same for all observers, whether those observers are moving or not (light constancy).
Dr. Densmore first discusses Einstein’s thought experiment. Einstein imagined a light clock onboard a train moving at velocity (V). The clock has a mirror in the front and a mirror in the back.[3] A beam of light is launched from the back mirror, reflects off the front mirror, and moves from mirror to mirror at velocity (C). The light clock is being observed by an observer in a fixed position and another observer who is moving at some speed. Einstein assumes that due to the homogeneity of space and time, the mathematical equations describing this phenomenon must be linear. Einstein concludes that the speed of light is constant for all observers and that the time rate is slower for the stationary observer than the moving observer.
Problems with Special Relativity
This experiment raises interesting questions. If the distance between the front and back mirrors is fixed (x), the beam of light would have to go faster from the back mirror to get to the front mirror and slower from the front mirror to get to the back mirror. His equations therefore describe the average time for a complete circuit rather than the instantaneous time. If x, the distance between the mirrors is infinitesimally small, the problem of distance is minimized but so is the theory’s usefulness in distinguishing the perceptions of mobile and stationary observers.
Einstein’s second postulate is especially problematic. Densmore writes, “this article has revealed that the initial equation that Einstein had based his entire theory of Special Relativity on, (τ0 + τ2)/2 = τ1 contradicts a key statement just a few paragraphs prior in his 1905 paper – that the equations of relativity must be linear (that there must be a linear relationship between the time on the stationary and moving frames.”[4] He continues, “Everything built on this second postulate only approaches reality as velocity approaches zero, in which limit special relativity does not apply.”[5]
Densmore cites Nikola Tesla’s opinion about Einstein’s Theories of Relativity,
“The theory of relativity he described as ‘a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.’”
“’ The theory,’” he said, “’ wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles, and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.’”[6]
“Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible – But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.”[7]
One may argue that Tesla was proven wrong about relativity due to discoveries after his death, such as the atomic bomb. Note that Einstein’s length contraction theory in special relativity has still not been directly observed but only inferred.
Aether as an old solution to problems in special relativity
Dr. Densmore agrees with Tesla that the best explanation of the propagation of light in the universe includes aether as a fundamental substance. He defines aether as a “locally dominant gravity field” and suggests that light could be a form of gravity wave, defined as “ripples in the fabric of spacetime.”[8] Densmore notes that light described as waves, but not particles, is consistent with the Michaelson-Morley experiments, with Unified Relativity, and the existence of aether.[9] In this theory, the speed of light is omnidirectional and constant in the locally dominant aether field. On Earth, and at the altitude of manned flight, the locally dominant gravity field is Earth’s. As one approaches other large gravitational entities such as the sun, the gravitational fields equalize at the Lagrange points.[10] The aether equalizes. As Densmore explains,
“Light that we see from a star in another galaxy makes its way to us by first propagating in the frame of that distant galaxy’s gravity field, then the light transitions to our galaxy’s gravity field, then transitions to the gravity field of our solar system, then to earth’s gravity field, and finally we see the light.”[11]
Commenting on general relativity, Densmore cites Einstein in saying “According to the general theory of relativity, space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time.”[12]
What real science requires to distinguish it from philosophy and ideology
Densmore’s ideas are intriguing, especially given Tesla’s and Einstein’s comments on aether. What is even more intriguing is that thought leaders of their day, and of our present day, intentionally misinterpret special and general relativity to justify moral relativism. This is not science but ideology wrapped in scientific garb.[13] The COVID pandemic was rife with examples of political ideology posing as science. As a result, governments negated freedom and forced organizations and people into foolish actions in the name of science.
How can a person distinguish between real science and philosophy masquerading as science? Real science requires several things:
- A willingness to question theories and assumptions.
- A frame of reference to answer the question.
- The discipline to know when a question is answered.
- A commitment to act according to what you find.
- The knowledge of which question to ask next.
- The courage to keep asking questions. Even ideological sacred cows should be questioned.
- The humility to accept the answers, even when they are not what you wanted or expected.
- The restraint to understand what a study says and what it does not say. Science is not philosophy, and a scientist is no more qualified to pontificate on philosophy than a philosopher is to pontificate on science.
- The commitment of non-scientist influencers, like the media, to report accurately on scientific findings.
- The patience to wait until the scientific process goes through its normal iterations to draw conclusions.
- A commitment to avoid chronological snobbery, the idea that we are smarter than those who came before us. An idea is neither true nor false based on its age alone.
If a scientist does not have these things, he is not practicing real science. If an influencer does not practice these things, he is not reporting real science. Knowledge should make one humble, not puff him up.
Conclusion
In his work on Unified Relativity, Dr. Arthur Densmore raises good questions about Einstein’s theory of special relativity. His efforts to probe Special Relativity help non-theoretical physicists to better understand the theory and its limitations. Special relativity turns out to be an approximation of reality but not a completely reliable picture of the physical world. Bringing back an old theory, the aether theory, might prove useful.
If special relativity is not quite as strong as advertised, is moral relativism, the philosophical premise that is based on special and general relativity, equally dubious? Is this a case of people using science to support their philosophy, propagate their ideology, and justify what they want to do? One wonders if, to these people, “science” is just a label.
Science is not philosophy and philosophy is not science. By virtue of their knowledge of science, scientists have no special ability to make moral or philosophical statements. However, the miracles of modern science and technology impress people. Space flight, medical treatment, and comforts unimaginable to our predecessors encourage us to believe in the ability of science to do anything. If science can do anything, anyone who wants to prove his point tries to make his opinion look scientific.[14]
Truth never flees from falsehood. Science comes directly from God, and good science always reveals His character. Real Christians have nothing to fear from the scientist or the laboratory. Even discoveries that seem to contradict Biblical truth should not trouble us. Either the discovery is wrong and will be overturned by future honest inquiry, or our interpretation of the Bible is wrong. God is never wrong. But it is incumbent upon us to be careful. Bad ideas and ignorant acceptance can have terrible consequences.
References
[1] https://albertmohler.com/2015/12/07/relativity-moral-relativism-and-the-modern-age/.
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics.
[3] Presumably these mirrors are not physical mirrors, which reflect light through electromagnetic processes, but theoretical reflecting surfaces which have none of the practical complications of physical mirrors.
[4] http://unitedresearch.com/.
[5] http://unitedresearch.com/.
[6] New York Times, 11 July 1935, https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/tesla-79-promises-transmit-force#google_vignette.
[7] https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/dynamic-theory-of-gravity/.
[8] http://unitedresearch.com/.
[9] Quantum mechanics leans toward light as a particle (photon).
[10] Lagrange points are positions in space where objects sent there tend to stay put. At Lagrange points, the gravitational pull of two large masses precisely equals the centripetal force required for a small object to move with them. These points in space can be used by spacecraft to reduce fuel consumption needed to remain in position. https://science.nasa.gov/resource/what-is-a-lagrange-point/.
[11] http://unitedresearch.com/.
[12] https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/.
[13] https://albertmohler.com/2015/12/07/relativity-moral-relativism-and-the-modern-age/.
[14] The reader may object that I am describing modernism, which has been largely supplanted by postmodernism. In the current world, even science is the target of disbelief. Actually, modern Western culture is a strange amalgam of modernism and postmodernism. We doubt science, but we still want to believe that it can solve our problems. Rejecting God, what other choice do we have?
