Many physicists presently are generally Einsteinian “top-downers”. These professionals consider the various relativistic results as consequences pertaining to the Principle of Relativity moreover that’s the way these individuals exhibit relativity to the public. They feel that inferring such outcomes as reactions of the manner fields act is in one way or another invalid.

“Look whateinstein you’ve done to our beautiful theory,” they say. “You’ve reduced it to mere physical effects. The F-L contraction is not a physical process that occurs because field configurations are affected by motion; it is something that is built into the nature of space. And this time dilation– it’s not that processes happen more slowly, it is a property of time itself.”.

While the aforementioned is my paraphrasing, note just how Einstein’s biographer, Abraham Pais, administered the snobbish word “corrected” to the bottom-up explanations offered by FitzGerald and Lorentz:.

FitzGerald and Lorentz had previously seen the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experimentation necessitated the introduction of a brand-new postulate, the contraction hypothesis. Their idea that this contraction is actually a dynamic effect (molecular forces within a rod in unvarying motion stand apart from the pressures inside of a rod at rest) was corrected by Einstein; the contraction of rods is literally a necessary consequence regarding his two postulates and is likely for the first time given its own appropriate observational explanation in the June paper.

The fact is, either technique is actually proper and one does not preclude the other. Of course, the Principle of Relativity is elegant and the top-down method is generally much easier to use; physicists are fond of it for that reason. But the field equations are also elegant and they not only contain the Principle of Relativity within them, they also provide a physical explanation for effects that otherwise are paradoxical. Humans can never know if God began with the Principle of Relativity and determined the field equations or perhaps started off using the field equations whence follows the Principle. In case She started using the principle in which the laws of nature should coincide in each moving systems, then She simultaneously provided structures so as to make it happen. And in the case that the systems are there, why not use them? They are real and understandable, and they should not be ignored.