ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Physics

Relativity - Length Contraction is a FRAUD

Updated on December 2, 2014

In this hub, we will investigate some of the ridiculous claims made by Relativity’s Length Contraction Theory, such as:

“The DISTANCE between two objects CONTRACTS (shrinks), when a particle such a muon, travels from object A to object B, at near-c speeds.”


Relativists, or more specifically, mathematicians, have no clue what the word DISTANCE means. This is why they use the word LENGTH synonymously with DISTANCE. Mathematicians are under the impression that the “distance” between two objects, is the “length” of a straight line between them. And of course they believe in such idiocies - they are mathematicians, NOT physicists!


In physics, there is a qualitative difference between “length” and “distance”. Length is only used in the context of objects, while distance is used in the context of space. These words cannot be used synonymously, like mathematicians use them in the religion of Relativity.


LENGTH: A static concept relating to the continuous matter between two surfaces.

DISTANCE: A static concept relating to the space separating two surfaces.


Length and distance are static concepts which are used exclusively in physics. Mathematicians have absolutely no use for these static concepts, as mathematics deals exclusively with DYNAMIC CONCEPTS!


So when mathematicians, like Einstein, use the words “length” or “distance”, they are referring to the “dynamic” distance an object travels, and not a physical distance. This concept is referred to as “DISTANCE-TRAVELED”, and it is a measured quantity for the purposes of mathematics.


Anytime we express “length” or “distance” in terms of units like cm, m, km, etc., we are explicitly referring to MEASUREMENT, and not to the qualitative static “length” or “distance” of physics. And in this case, “distance-traveled” has to do with the distance a SINGLE object travels, like the leading edge of your measuring tape, in order take a measurement from one location to another. Whereas “distance”, refers to the separation between two objects and has nothing to do with measurement.


This is the reason why the mathematical dynamic distance-travelled of ONE object, has absolutely nothing to do with the physical static distance between TWO objects.




- observer dependent

- mathematical/calculated/predicted

- akin to an activity or a movie

- a quantitative dynamic scalar

- measured with a clock and calculated with speed

- has units of a predefined standard

- measured between said object and its previous imaginary location



- observer independent

- physical

- akin to a snapshot of a photograph

- a qualitative static property

- the static gap of a caliper

- is unitless

- a discontinuity in matter




The Length Contraction Nonsense of Special Relativity


Why are we so concerned with the exact physical interpretation of “length”, “distance”, and “distance-traveled”?

Because Einstein and his gang of Relativists are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. They have reified these concepts into real physical objects. Then they claim to contract/shrink them by merely using their magical conceptual equations. As explained in my Big Bang hubs, CONCEPTS CANNOT STRETCH NOR SHRINK, and “length” & “distance” are no exception. In physics, an object, like your pants, can shrink when you put them in the dryer. But the dryer can NEVER shrink the “length” of your pants. Length is a static qualitative property that can neither shrink nor way in Hell.


The mathematicians of Relativity are using sleight-of-hand to fool you into believing that the “length” of a car, or the “distance” between two mountain peaks contracted simply because a particle zips by them at near-light speed. Does that make any sense to a rational human?

A rational human understands that only OBJECTS can contract or expand, and certainly NOT concepts, such as “length” and “distance”.


But Relativists are bold enough to claim that BOTH “length” AND “distance” shorten!

1) In the case of a car traveling at near-c, Einstein claims that the car contracts its “length”. In other words: the car shrinks!

2) In the case of a muon traveling towards the Earth at near-c, Einstein claims that it is the static “distance” the “muon has yet to travel”, that suffers contraction. In other words: the Earth’s atmosphere shrinks!


Therefore, Einstein and his gang of followers make no distinction between static “length” and “distance” in their ludicrous Length Contraction Theory.


But it turns out that their entire Thought Experiment is DYNAMIC because it involves motion. They are ultimately referring to NEITHER static “length” nor static “distance”, whenever they use the words ‘length’ & ‘distance’. They are in fact dealing with dynamic DISTANCE-TRAVELED (without even telling you), a concept that the mathematicians have perpetually confused for static “length” and “distance”.


And since Relativists are ultimately dealing with dynamic distance-traveled, then it goes without saying that:

1) The physical static “length” of an object has suffered no change when it travels at near-c speed.

2) The physical static “distance” between two objects has suffered no change when a muon zips by them at near-c speed.


Now it becomes evident why Relativists like to use the term “LENGTH CONTRACTION”, and NOT the term “OBJECT CONTRACTION”. Mathematical length and distance is a subjective quantitative scalar, whereas the shrinking of a car is an objective qualitative issue concerning physics. Relativity is a subjective discipline no different than Religion. Relativity deals with subjective observations, illusions, unattainable measurements, and gross extrapolations.

We do not need observers and their subjective measurements, calculations, and predictions to determine whether the car shrunk or not. The shrinking of the car is an issue concerning the reality of nature, rather than the observations of a PhD Nobel Prize winner. Does a PhD who wears glasses have more objective eyesight than someone without glasses? Such subjective criteria have no place in physics. As such, it is the job of the Theory to rationally explain what physical process induces the car to shrink at near-c speeds. And also how the car is alleged to it’s atoms shrink?....does it lose atoms?


As explained in the example below, Relativists haphazardly invoked the mathematical notion of dynamic DISTANCE-TRAVELED within the realm of physics, and synonymously used this term with the static “length” and “distance” of physics. The Relativists can claim all they want, that the dynamic “distance-travelled” by a near-c particle contracted/shrank. Well, the particle is moving.....and actually moving closer to its target. So every time they take a successive “imaginary” measurement, it will be quantitatively lower than their previous measurement. But it is absurd to claim that the static “distance” of physics contracted. Not even God can perform such impossible tasks.


By mixing up these different terms, Einstein was able to swindle the public into accepting his irrational theories. Albert Einstein was not a physicist. He was a half-assed mathematician who erroneously assumed that Mathematics is the language of Physics. As you will see, he was dead wrong!






Relativity posits the following irrational claim:

1) Suppose that a sub-atomic particle, known as a muon, travels by two mountain peaks at near-c speed.

2) When the muon is traveling from peak A to peak B, the DISTANCE in front of the muon (between the muon and peak B up ahead) contracts.


A physicist would naturally ask:

a) Did the static distance between mountain peaks A and B, contract/shrink?

b) Did the mountains actually move closer to each other?

c) Did the Earth’s crust actually shrink between the mountains?


Relativists are known to give conflicting answers to such questions and dance around the issues. They cannot give you an unambiguous “Yes” or “No” answer.

Well guess what?

a) It is IMPOSSIBLE for the static distance to contract.

b) The two mountains obviously did NOT move closer to each other.

c) The Earth’s crust obviously did NOT shrink.


Hence, it is completely irrational to claim that the static distance between the muon and peak B shrank. It doesn’t matter how many muons you shoot between mountain peaks A and will NEVER run into a situation where mountain B moved closer to mountain A, or the Earth shrunk – this is impossible!!

But since the muon is in motion, this necessarily implies that it was the muon that MOVED CLOSER to peak B. This means that the Relativists are actually referring to the dynamic distance-traveled by the muon, and NOT the static “distance” invoked in their theory. But since the muon hasn’t traveled this distance yet, Relativity is contradicting itself!



Because Relativists use the dynamic “distance-traveled” by ONE object (muon), to tell you that the static “distance” between TWO objects (muon & peak B) contracted. So they are using the dynamic distance already “traveled” by the muon, in order to calculate a distance that the muon has YET to travel. So if they assert that the static “distance” in front of the muon (towards peak B) has somehow shrunk,....while the static distance between peak A and peak B remains the same,....then it is actually the muon which has MOVED closer to peak B at a very high rate. There is no other option!

Hence, the speed of the muon during its remaining distance it has YET to travel towards peak B, has necessarily exceeded the speed of light in order to make up the difference in their calculations (which assumed a shorter static “distance”). There is NO other option here. There is NO way in hell that either the static “distance” shrunk, or that the two mountains moved closer to each other! It is by necessity that the muon traveled the remaining distance towards peak B at superluminal speed. And thus we have a situation where Special Relativity is contradicting itself.






Einstein’s Theory of Relativity posits the ridiculous claim that a concept, such as the static “distance” of physics, can physically contract/shrink. But when its physical interpretations are analyzed, Relativity is actually describing a scenario where the speed of light is exceeded, thus contradicting itself. Without the injected confusion of dynamic “distance” and “length = distance”, and their associated semantic loopholes, Length Contraction is instantly debunked. Relativity is a Religion that posits subjectivity and surrealism in the reality of nature, and thus has absolutely nothing to do with Physics.


So now that Relativity’s Length Contraction has been debunked, Relativists may want to change the terms they use in their theory. They may want to posit that it is the actual OBJECTS themselves which contract/shrink, and not their length/distance.

If Relativists dare to go down this path (and they never will), then the onus is on them to explain the physical mechanism which induced the atoms of the two mountains to shrink when a muon zipped by them at near-c speeds. We need a physical explanation for their bald assertions. No more dancing around with semantic arguments and surrealistic Thought Experiments.





Submit a Comment

No comments yet.