昨天我完成了关于狭义相对论的第一假说（相对性原理假说）的逻辑缺陷的英文文章（见下面附录），将之帖子academia.com （https://www.academia.edu/s/eae6c0ac12），刚才被暗黑势力删除了。不但如此，还把我从我帖了上述链接的三个讨论群中除去（https://www.academia.edu/s/9cf6b56c93，https://www.academia.edu/s/7c88c91a93，https://www.academia.edu/s/aee8bf8fb2）。两个小时之前，我还在那三个群中。如果他们仅把我从讨论群中除去，我还会以为我得罪了谁，但是他们把我的原文删去就表明他们是一群害怕真理想要对人类进行集体洗脑的暗黑势力。 附录：被删的英文原文
The Troublesome First Postulate of Special Relativity Rongqing Dai 1. Introduction The first postulate of the special theory of relativity states that all inertial coordinate systems are equivalent in describing natural laws [[1], [2]] (it was then extended to any Gaussian coordinate system or simply any system by Einstein [[3]] for the general theory of relativity). This postulate, together with the postulate that the speed of light in vacuum is constant to all observers, is the foundation of the special theory of relativity. Previously when discussing the logical defect of the second postulate of the special theory of relativity exposed by a thought experiment [[4]], I have already pointed out the need to banish the first postulate of the special theory of relativity as well together with the second postulate for two reasons: 1) the historical cause which gave birth to the first postulate of special relativity as the extension of the Galilean principle of relativity was the need to make Maxwell equation take the same form in all inertial systems, which is some kind of aesthetical preference instead of empirically established finding with solid reasons; 2) the request that Maxwell equation should take the same form in all inertial systems would naturally lead to the second postulate of the special theory of relativity which has been invalidated by the abovementioned thought experiment. This current writing will offer a more direct reason why we should banish the first postulate of the special theory of relativity through the discussion of an entailment of the first postulate that is logically erroneous. Before starting our discussion we need first to clarify some basic notions that are implicitly involved in all applications of the first postulate of the special theory of relativity. 1.1. The extensibility of the frame of reference In order to appreciate the meaning of the equivalence of describing natural laws, we need first clear about how natural processes are supposed to be observed by any coordinate system or frame of reference in physics. In the study of physics, a coordinate system or a frame of reference would normally extend to infinity from negative to positive, and all locations in the universe that are covered by its coordinates are supposed instantly observable by any observer that is stationed with the system (i.e. the observer is moving with the system). This stipulation is important for the special theory of relativity because of the claim made by the first postulate that physical laws are all the same in any inertial system, e.g. we cannot say that an observer O that is moving with system K (e.g. the Sun), no matter where he locates in K, has more authority about the laws concerning some physical processes happening in K than an observer that is moving with system K’ (e.g. the Earth), no matter where he locates in K’, about the laws concerning those physical processes. 1.2. Physical realness according to the first postulate of special theory of relativity Closely related to the above mentioned stipulation, the most important knowledge about relativity is that it is claimed not to be mere mathematical expressions, but rather the reflection of the reality of real physical processes observed in any inertial system. Accordingly, even if a physical process happens in a body attached to coordinate system K, according to the special theory of relativity, the process observed (or estimated) by an observer O’ in a body attached to coordinate system K’ moving relatively to K is as real as an observer O attached to K in the sense that none of them is more favored in explaining the physical nature of the process. This is the requirement of the first postulate of the special theory of relativity. 2. The Consequence of Applying FitzGerald–Lorentz Contraction and Einstein E = mc2 Together Fitzgerald [[5]] in 1889 and Lorentz [[6]] in 1892 independently proposed the hypothesis that all bodies are contracted in the direction of their motion by a factor β = (1 - v2/c2)1/2 (1) which was subsequently called FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis, and in 1905, Einstein published his famous formula E = mc2 (2) The FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis is a composing part of the famous Lorentz transformations, and the Lorentz transformations and the Einstein energy-inertia relationship (2) have become two most important icons of the special theory of relativity. However, the combination of the FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis and the Einstein energy-inertia relationship (2) could lead to logically problematic conclusion as demonstrated below. Assume that an object moving along x axis at speed v acquires an energy increase ∆E compared to its static status, which would entail an increase of mass ∆m according to (2); but on the other hand, according to FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis, the object would contract by a factor as expressed in (1) in the moving direction while the sizes in the other two spatial dimensions remain the same, and thus its total volume would contract by an amount of ∆V according to (1). The increased mass and decreased volume would logically lead to the following conclusion: [The density of the moving object increases as the result of its motion.] (*) The above statement (*) is very troublesome because it indicates that the motion of a body could actually change the physical properties (e.g. density) of another independent body, which is utterly in contradiction to our daily experience. In the above example of moving object, to an observer O moving with the object, the energy, mass, volume of the object all take the rest values. It is only to observers O’ that is in movement at the speed v relative to the object would observe that the density of the object would increase because of its movement. However, according to the first postulate of the special theory of relativity, i.e. the principle of relativity, we know the following: 1) The relative movement between the object and the observer O’ could be caused by the movement of the observer O’ starting from his original stationary status with respect to the object; 2) To observer O’, the change of density is not a mere mathematical game, but rather physically real, and anyone who is at rest with respect to the object does not have more authority over the physical status of the object than observer O’; or we may say that the physical status of the object observed by O’ would not be determined by the observation of anyone who is at rest with respect to the object, but only determined by O’. If the above relativistic conclusion could be true, then the whole world would be in a complete mess. For a solid object, the change of density would mean the change of the arrangement of molecules in the object, and for fluids, the change of density could entail the change of pressure, temperature, and even chemical compositions. Suppose we have a cuboid of plasticine with a longitudinal length of L and sectional area of A in a frame of reference K and there is an observer O’ in a frame of reference K’ that is moving at speed v relative to K in the direction parallel to L. Now according to FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis and Einstein energy-inertia relationship (2), we would have a length contraction A∆L and a mass augmentation of ∆m, and thus a density increment of ∆ρ = (∆Lm+L ∆m)/AL2 (3) where both ∆L and ∆m are positive. However, according the theory of solid mechanics[7], the deformation of a solid in one dimension would also cause the deformation of the solid in the other two dimensions; but in the case of a cuboid of plasticine, the non-relativistic deformation in the other two dimensions would be permanent and would not disappear even though the length in the moving direction could be assumed to restore to the original L after the relative motion stops according to special relativity. As another example, suppose we have an insulated box filled with air consisting of molecular nitrogen and oxygen only [[8]] at 38˚C and also containing a wax bar that will melt at 40˚C. Now a spaceship at a distance away is launched and a while later it reaches the speed about 18% of the speed of light c. Then according to the special theory of relativity, the astronaut O’ in the spaceship who is knowledgeable of the insulated box would estimate that the density of the box and everything inside would have increased more than 1.6% due to the reduction of the volume and the addition of mass, and thus the temperature within the box should have adiabatically risen to exceed 40˚C, which means that the wax bar is melting. Since the melting of wax is thermodynamically irreversible, the melted wax in the insulated box “observed” by the astronaut O’ will never come back to its original intact state again. Then the astronaut returns to the launch site and go to check the insulated box after he has landed. When he opens the box, if the wax is melted as he “observed” in space according to the special theory of relativity, then the whole universe would be in a complete mess. But fortunately, as we can say with confidence, the wax in the insulated box would not melt simply because of the motion of some irrelevant spaceship faraway. It is important to notice that in the above two examples, the observer O’ does not have direct connection with the observed object which would justify a cause and effect relationship, and O’ and the observed object could be just two randomly moving objects in the universe. 2.1. The problematic Twin Paradox Originated from the comment about the delay of the moving clock made by Einstein in his 1905 landmark paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, the most critical connotation of the famous Twin Paradox is indeed not who might live longer between the separate twins, but rather the claim that the natural processes in two independently moving systems are related by their relative movements through mathematical relations, the Lorentz transformations. While many believe that they could provide a reasonable solution to the Twin Paradox and thus show that the twin travelled with spaceship can live longer and some other would say the opposite, the absurdity of the above statement (*) would put an end mark on the debate because the assertion of the meaningfulness of the Twin Paradox would lead absurd results similar to the deformation of the cuboid plasticine and the melting wax discussed above. 3. The Relationship between the FitzGerald–Lorentz Contraction Hypothesis and E = mc2 The absurdity of statement (*) as the result of applying both the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis and the Einstein energy-inertia relationship (2) on a moving object tells that something is wrong with the combination of both the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis and the Einstein energy-inertia relationship. So far all the experimental verifications about FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis are indirect, while some direct verification of equation (2) [[9]] has claimed to reach a precision of four-tenths of 1 part in 1 million. Hence, it might seem to be easy to come to the verdict that it must be the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis that is responsible for the absurdity of statement (*) and the Einstein energy-inertia relationship has nothing to do with it. However, as we could see from [[10]] that Einstein actually worked out the energy-inertia relationship (2) through the expression of relativistic energy which was derived using Lorentz transformations, while the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis is the basis of the Lorentz transformations. In this sense, we could say that Einstein energy-inertia relation (2) is the logical consequence of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis. Then the question would arise: how could be a good result derived out of an erroneous formula? But on the other hand, we might also notice that although the energy-inertia relation (2) is considered as the most famous relativistic formula proved by Einstein, it actually has nothing to do with relativity since it is about every piece of material entity in the universe, supposedly from the subatomic particles to the gigantic megaliths and bigger, regardless which frame of reference used to examine it. The special relativity as a theory is only relevant in the derivation of (2) when the Lorentz factor γ is involved to bring c2 into the proportionality between energy E and mass m. Currently the energy expressed by (2) is interpreted as the total energy stored in the mass, including the binding energy and the kinetic energy of the particles. If this is true, then there should be other ways to prove it without invoking the theory of relativity since this is not a relativistic issue. In fact, it is reported [[11]] that even before Einstein published his first landmark paper on relativity “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” [[12]], Oliver Heaviside, Wilhelm Wien, Henri Poincaré, Max Abraham, and Fritz Hasenöhrl had already reached either relation (2) or relation (2) with a proportionality constant of4/3, through nonrelativistic approaches. The fact that the nonrelativistic relation (2) could be derived through both relativistic and nonrelativistic approaches is a very intriguing phenomenon, which might be where we should look for the answer why Einstein could work out relation (2) through the Lorentz transformation despite that the combination of relation (2) and the Lorentz transformation would lead to erroneous conclusion. 4. The Troublesome First Postulate of Special Relativity From the above discussion we might see that the combination of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis and Einstein energy-inertia relationship (2) would lead to absurd conclusions as illustrated by the above statement (*). However, this would happen only if we accept the first postulate of special relativity. Humans make astronomic observations mainly to help us to better understand the universe and to predict cosmological impacts upon our planet, and we do not expect that our observation would impact the physical processes on other celestial bodies. However, the physical realness demanded by the principle of relativity, i.e. the first postulate of special relativity, tells us two very special things: 1) the physical processes we observed on the celestial bodies that are in movement relative to us are not the same as what observers on those celestial bodies would see due to the relative speed v between us; 2) what we observed on those celestial bodies are not less real than what observers on those celestial bodies would see as long as we could have good enough apparatus since all frames of reference are of equal rights in describing physical laws in the universe. If any one of the above two relativistic statements is invalid, then the whole framework of the special theory of relativity would collapse. The first batch of consequences of denying the correctness of the above two relativistic statements would be that the length contraction and time dilation are not real, which would utterly eradicate the value of special relativity. However, if we accept the first postulate of special relativity, then as discussed above, when we apply both FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis and Einstein energy-inertia relationship to a moving object, we would say things as absurd as the above statement (*). 4.1. The troubled relativity of simultaneity While it seems that we can derive relativity of simultaneity from Lorentz transformations, in fact, one needs the notion of relativity of simultaneity to fortify the position of Lorentz transformations in the special theory of relativity. This is because if the simultaneity is of absolute nature then Lorentz time dilation would be only a mathematical trick without any physical significance. For this reason, Einstein obviously felt the necessity of establishing the notion of the relativity of simultaneity through the famous train thought experiment [[13]]. One interesting part of the train experiment is that Einstein first established the notion of the relativity of simultaneity by taking into consideration of the impact of the speed v of the train upon the discrepancy between the observations of the observer stationary to the rail embankment and the observer stationary to the moving train, but then use the constancy of the speed of light to deny the influence of the movement of the train upon the speed of light. While this is a legitimate technique of discourse, it does remind us that the constancy of speed light would be in trouble without the concept of the relativity of simultaneity. Nevertheless, from the train experiment of Einstein we might see that the notion of the relativity of simultaneity is constructed on top of the troublesome first postulate of the special theory of relativity. Without the principle of relativity, one cannot assume the equal rights to judge the simultaneity of the two flashes of lightning in the thought experiment. However, if we deny the relativity of simultaneity, then we would be instantly brought to the question of how to define the universal simultaneity. The simple and direct answer to this question would be that we just go back to the pre-relativity concept of absolute time, and we could expect that it would annoy many nowadays scientists, not only because the notion of space time as the building block of contemporary physics is closely related to the concept of relativity of simultaneity (at least as the notion of space-time is used now before we reinterpret it), but also because people do not have a clearly defined pre-relativity concept of absolute time yet, except for some record of historical debates on the issue. But on the other hand, the scientific community could comfortably work with the vague concept of absolute time without a crystal clear definition for centuries until the need of integrating electromagnetism with Newtonian mechanics apparently demanded to banish the concept of absolute time. Therefore, when the relativity of simultaneity is no longer considered valid, there should be no insurmountable obstacle for people to go back to the old concept of absolute time by modifying the meaning of space-time, if necessary. 5. Final Remarks This writing was inspired by an error in an article written by Austrian scholar Niklaas Jooste [[14]] posted in academia.com. In that article, Jooste attempts to work out the relationship between the change of mass and the change of volume for his model of elastic ether by applying FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis and Einstein energy-inertia relationship (2) while assuming a constant density ρ, without noticing the mismatch of signs between the change of volume (negative) and the change of mass (positive), which was noticed by an audience during the discussion of that article. Obviously, as discussed earlier in this writing, what Jooste exposed goes beyond a simple false equation with mismatched sign on different sides, but rather is a lethal defect of the special theory of relativity which would lead to the absurd statement (*). The most significant nature of this defect is its entailment of irreversible changes. For the past century, people have got familiar with basic features of the relativistic effects of motions; but one important aspect of the effects that would be entailed by the theory of special relativity has been basically missing, which is the irreversibility of the relativistic processes. According to the mainstream theory of relativity, when the relative speed of two system decreases to zero, things would go back to the status at rest based on the Lorentz transformations. However, as discussed above, the first postulate of the special theory of relativity would logically dictate irreversible physical as well as chemical changes in the remote system, which is naturally and logically impossible.
[[1]] Einstein, A (1912) “Relativity and Gravitation, Reply to a Comment by M. Abraham” Annalen der Physik 38. Translated by Anna Beck, with Don Howard consultant ed. [[2]] Einstein, A., Lorentz, H.A., Minkowski, H., and Weyl, H. (1952) [1923]. Arnold Sommerfeld (ed.). “The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity”. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. p. 111. ISBN 0-486-60081-5. [[3]] Einstein, A. (1916) “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”. Translated by Robert William Lawson. Part II. Available at: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_II [[4]] Dai, R. (2022) “Invalidating the Postulate of Constant Speed of Light with a Thought Experiment”. Available at https://www.academia.edu/83299157/Postulate_of_Constant_Speed_of_Light_Invalidated_by_a_Thought_Experiment [[5]] Fitzgerald, G. F. (1889) “Ether and Earth Atmosphere.” Science 13, 390 (1889) [[6]] Lorentz, H. A. (1892) “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Aether”, Versl. Kon. Acad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 1 ,74(1892). translated from Dutch by Wikisource [[7] ] e.g. Wikipedia, “Deformation (engineering)”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(engineering). Last edited on 26 July 2022, at 07:43 (UTC). [[8]] Based on example from Wikipedia. “Adiabatic process”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process [[9]] NIST, “Einstein Was Right (Again): Experiments Confirmthat E= mc2”, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commers. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2005/12/einstein-was-right-again-experiments-confirm-e-mc2 [[10]] Einstein A. (1905) “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon Its Energy-content?”. Annalen der Physic 18 (1905):639-641. Republished in Blumenthal 1913, pp 53-55. Available at https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf [[11]] Rothman, T. (2015) "Was Einstein the First to Invent E = mc2?", Scientific American 313, 3, (September 2015). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/ [[12]] Einstein A. (1905) “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in Annalen der Physik. 17:891, 1905, translations by W. Perrett and G.B. Jeffery [[13]] Einstein, A. (1916) “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”. Translated by Robert William Lawson. Part I. Available at: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_I [[14]] Jooste, N.J. (2022) “Special Relativity - Einstein's Unintentional Shortcut to an Elastic Aether”. https://www.academia.edu/84401199/Special_Relativity_Einsteins_Unintentional_Shortcut_to_an_Elastic_Aether
| 
