“In the field of mathematics I have traced out successively from Descartes onward the source of his [Einstein’s] ideas - for here, too, there is nothing original - and I have shown that the magic, or the paradox of his theory consists in giving to mathematical expressions, strained meanings, and the setting down as realities what are conventional modes of representing operations.” [Lynch]
In this criticism Lynch is pointing the finger at one of the fundamental flaws of Einstein’s theories of relativity: the substitution of mathematical calculations (abstractions) for physical realities. In taking exception to this sleight-of-hand Lynch is not only fully in line with all true scientists but also with Pope Pius XII who already in 1948 made the following astute observation:
“The equations (of Maxwell) are certainly a work of genius, yet, as with every similar advance in physical theory, they both suppose and imply a simplification and idealisation [abstraction] of reality without which mathematics cannot usefully develop. How often at the present time, instead of exact laws, one can only propose norms of a particular, instead of a general, explanation? .... The investigator does what he can and gives the most probable explanation. Since however he does not know what is the basic dynamic principle of the registered change, he must confine himself to formulating a statistical law .... There are cases in which the investigation moves rather in a circle; cases that is to say, in which theories that seemed to have conquered the world reach the category of undisputed doctrines, thus earning for their advocates the esteem of the scientific world, only to fall again into the region of hypothesis, and to be eventually discarded.”
In other words, ‘Statistical laws’ (i.e. mathematical calculations) must not be confused by scientists with ‘laws in nature’, because the former are not real but only mere abstractions.
“Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept ‘empty space’ loses its meaning.” [Einstein]
If physical objects e.g. sun, earth, moon, planets, Hubble telescopes, satellites, Mars probes etc are not in space, then where are they? How are the man-made objects controlled if scientists do not know exactly where they are?
“The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other.
This latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from playing a considerable role even in scientific thought.” [Einstein]
No comment. How can anyone postulate as certain, and then expect anyone else to agree, that “one space” can have no objective and independent existence, but an infinite number of spaces is logically unavoidable. An infinite number of spaces is composed of an infinite number of single spaces which means of an infinite number of spaces to which, according to Einstein, we must deny existence ...
Such immense contradictions paraded as ‘truth’ call to mind what Pope Pius XII has said above about ‘pseudo-science’.
“Experience has led to the conviction that, on the one hand, the principle of relativity holds true and that on the other hand the velocity of light in ‘vacuo’ has to be considered equal to a constant ‘c’. By uniting these two postulates we obtain the law of transformation ... of the events which constitute the processes of nature. ... This [transformation] is a definite mathematical condition that the theory of relativity demands of a natural law, and in virtue of this, the theory becomes a valuable heuristic aid [i.e. propaganda tool] in the search for general laws of nature. If a general law of nature were to be found which did not satisfy this condition, then at least one of the two fundamental assumptions of the theory would have been disproved.” [Einstein]
Note the basic contradiction presented by Einstein concerning the constancy of the speed of light. He introduces this concept as a conviction based on experience, and finishes by admitting that in fact it is only an assumption.
It has come to light that many scientists at the time that these postulates were made by Einstein were privately very concerned about these assumptions, and subsequent research has shown that they had every reason to be concerned.
Their uneasiness with a never proven constancy of the speed of light, in the face of many findings in modern research that the speed of light is not constant, bears out what Pope Pius XII announced as far back as 1951. In this address to the scientific community, the Holy Father made the findings of contemporary scientific research the foundation upon which to build his argument that literally everything considered by science:
(a) is in continual change (state of flux), and
(b) has a ‘run-down’ direction (entropy).
And furthermore, nowhere in this address does the Holy Father fall into the trap of calling the results of these scientific endeavours ‘facts’, in the literal sense of the word, as we saw Einstein do in the above proposition. They are empirical facts, open to change.
The foregoing speaks for itself, and is in no need of further elaboration. Rome has spoken, the matter is finished.