(page 2)


This is the contracted but still symmetric Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern from a moving linear emitter.

Any observer moving along with this emitter will be unable to detect his motion through the aether from it.

He will still measure equal wavelengths and receive equal frequencies forward and backward.

He will not notice the axial contraction according to Lorentz's g factor because he will be himself contracted.

The Relativity principle is simple: any moving observer always see things as if he was at rest.



Relativity is all about mystification where the Doppler effect hides from our eyes what is really going on. This can easily be explained on condition that matter and fields of force are made of standing waves, and that light and all forces such as gravity are caused by traveling waves.

Clearly, any moving wave system should undergo the Doppler effect. However it is not that simple because the regular Doppler effect is asymmetric. For example, a bell moving at beta = sin 30° = .5 times the speed of sound emits sound waves which are less lengthened backward than they are compressed forward. The calculus for the regular Doppler effect is quite simple :

The forward wavelength is:  1 beta  =  .5 time shorter.

The backward wavelength is:  1 + beta  =  1.5 times longer.

Additionally, in the presence of a strong wind (or in a moving frame of reference such as a train platform), additional effects occur because the observer is moving with respect to air. He may also use a moving source and a moving screen in order to produce standing waves and check for the first node position (this is called the Hertz test).

Then the transverse wavelength and the transverse standing wave pattern are:

 g  =  cos 30°  =  sqr(1 beta ^ 2)  =  .866 time shorter.

The moving axial standing wave pattern is:  

g ^ 2  =  .75 time shorter.

Thus the difference allows the moving observer to detect his speed as compared to the wave medium. But this is no longer possible for matter or force waves such as gravity and light because Lorentz's Doppler effect is perfectly symmetric.

The important point is that any periodic phenomenon slows down at high speed in accordance with the contraction factor: g = sqr(1 beta ^ 2). This was well established by Hendrick A. Lorentz in 1904. Especially, the electron frequency slows down according to g:


f ' =  g f

The electron frequency slows down according to Lorentz's factor.

This phenomenon alone causes the Lorentz transformations and explains Relativity.


 Surprisingly, the frequency reduction produces a perfectly symmetric Doppler effect as seen by an observer at rest. As compared to waves in a system at rest, the contraction forward and the dilation backward occur according to the same wavelength or frequency ratio.

Let us suppose that a complex wave system such as the electron is moving at 50% of the speed of light, hence beta = .5 and g = .866. The forward or backward frequency ratio is R = (1 + beta) / g  =  1.732. All the system undergoes an expansion according to the gamma factor, hence 1 / g:

The forward wavelength is:  (1 beta) / g  =  1 / R  =  .577  times shorter.

The backward wavelength is:  (1 + beta) / g  =  R  =  1.732  times longer.

The transverse wavelength is:  g / g  =  1  finally unchanged.

The transverse standing wave pattern is:  g / g  =  1  finally unchanged

The moving axial standing wave pattern is:  g ^ 2 / g  =  g  =  .866  time shorter.


The axial standing wave node and antinode pattern becomes g = .866 shorter instead of g squared = .75. The point is that the electron is made of standing waves. It is a well known fact that the 8-electron atomic external layer radius, which is responsible for chemical binding, is linked to a given wavelength. This explains why molecules, hence matter, undergo an axial contraction according to g only instead of g squared.

Please note the incredible symmetry:  1 / 1.732 = .577 and inversely,  1 / .577 = 1.732 according to the Doppler ratio  R = (1 + beta) / g  =  1.732  >  1.

On the one hand, this symmetry requires the observer to use the same R ratio for the redshift and the blueshift from matter or galaxies moving away from him or towards him (albeit the blue shift rarely occurs). On the other hand, the results would be exactly the same if the galaxy was rather at rest and if the observer was moving away from it or towards it. Whatever the situation, he has no choice any more. He must use exactly the same formula below (lambda stands for the wavelength as measured in his frame of reference) in order to establish the galaxy's beta velocity.

Thus, he will obtain only the relative velocity, which is given by:


Please remember this example: 86.6% of the speed of light.

Let us take a more dramatic example where transverse waves are tilted to phi = 60°. This example is convenient because it does not need additional calculations. In this case, matter contracts to exactly 50% of its original length according to Lorentz's g contraction factor and clocks indicate seconds which are exactly two times longer according to the gamma factor.

All experiences in this page will systematically suppose that beta = .866. The phi angle = 60° is important because Relativity is just a consequence of the Doppler effect, which is sinusoidal:

beta  =  sin 60°  =  v / c  =  .866025403

 g  =  cos 60°  =  sqr(1 beta ^ 2)  =  .5

gamma  =  1 / cos 60°  =  1 / g  =  2

R  =  gamma + tan 60°  =  (1 + beta) / g  =  3.732

In this example, a distant galaxy exhibits a redshift ratio R = 3.732 which is incompatible with the regular 1 + beta backward Doppler effect (beta < 1 and R < 2 assuming that the speed of light c = 1 is unattainable for matter).

This indicates that matter on this fast moving galaxy emits light which basic frequency (before undergoing the Doppler effect) is slower according to Lorentz's g factor. Incidentally, astronomers prefer to speak about the universe expansion in accordance with the Hubble constant. This point of view is not consistent with Lorentzian Relativity. Space does not transform, matter and fields of forces do. But surprisingly, it would be still correct if the aether itself was expanding. 

Detecting relative motion only.

However, the observer should be aware that this galaxy could be perfectly at rest as well. He himself would rather be moving away at .866 c and, in this case, his whole environment would be transformed according to Lorentz. Especially, clocks would behave slower; in this example they would display .5 slower second instead of one absolute second.

The light waves emitted by the unmoving galaxy are free from any frequency reduction and any Doppler effect, but the moving observer experiences the virtual Doppler effect according to f ' = f (1 beta) = .13397 time the original frequency. Additionally, his clocks indicate slower hours and the recorded frequency will seem to be .13397 / .5 = .26794 as compared to the original and absolute one, hence a perfectly identical and symmetric redshift ratio: R = 1 / .26794 = 3.732.

So, simply because the electron frequency slows down at high speed, the blueshift or redshift ratio can no longer inform the observer whether or not he is moving. Actually, both the observer and the galaxy are most likely to be moving with respect to the aether, but their absolute velocity can never be established. Whatever the situation, recorded data reluctantly indicate relative velocity only.

No transverse contraction.

The electron standing waves contract on the translation x-axis but not on transverse y and z axes. This is consistent with the Lorentz transformations:

y'  =  y

z'  =  z

Because the electron frequency slows down according to Lorentz's g factor, its transverse wavelength remains stable at any speed in such a way that matter never contracts transversally. Transverse distances do not contract either because all transverse forces responsible for matter mechanics remain stable. It is also the case for light and radio waves because they are produced by electrons.

Consequently, the observer can no longer detect his velocity with respect to the aether by observing changes in transverse distances, transverse light wavelength or transverse forces. This is a very rare case where direct flawless comparison is possible between two systems, one moving and the other being at rest. So let us examine this interesting situation.

 Observers A and B are at rest with respect to the aether.

Motion for A' and B' is parallel to the orthogonal x-axis (not visible on this plane).

The distance is the same for both systems: one light-second or 300000 km (186,000 miles).

A, A' and B, B' may come very close together and act like a measuring rod. 

There is no time shift on this plane, so they can simultaneously check that no contraction occurs.


In any direction on the moving transverse plane including A' and B', light or radio waves are slower according to g. However, the time needed for a radio signal to travel the distance follows exactly the slower hours according to g:

The time for waves to travel a transverse distance is:  1 / g  =  2 times longer.

Surprisingly, A' and B' are right in spite of two serious anomalies. Their clocks display slower seconds but the radio signal velocity is also slower according to the same g factor. Thus they can still verify that the distance to the opposite moving observer is one light-second. They can also measure y or z distances correctly in radio wavelength absolute units because transverse wavelength never changes.

So the very first condition for Relativity to be true is the absence of transverse contraction. Otherwise, A and B would clearly observe that A' and B' are nearer while A' and B' would rather observe that A and B are more distant. There would be no reciprocity any more and their absolute speed with respect to the aether would become measurable. However, Lorentz and Poincaré were not aware that matter is made of waves. They had to laboriously use Maxwell's equations. So they wrote pages and pages with tons of equations on magnetic fields, electric fields, permittivity, permeability, light propagating through dielectrics, explain the Fizeau experiment, the Michelson experiment, Bradley's stellar aberration, etc.

Their unbelievable ignorance of the Doppler effect now appears truly deceiving, but they succeeded anyway.

Poincaré wrote that, using the "lesser action principle", he finally found that Voigt's constant should be equal to 1. But he very clearly adds (in two separate books) that Lorentz had already found this equality (using the "try and error method", par tâtonnements). The Lorentz transformations are just a special case of Voigt's ones where the constant is 1 and where the slower frequency leads to the absence of transverse contraction. So this useless bulky constant could be removed and Lorentz's equation set became simpler.

Clearly, Lorentz found his famous transformations before Poincaré; but at that time he was not well aware that they lead to Relativity. Actually, he failed to proclaim its universality in his 1904 book. Poincaré, on his side, had already described the correct Relativity principle (based on the Lorentz transformations, but wrongly rejecting matter contraction) in his 1901 book "Electricity and Optics". In 1904, in St-Louis, USA, he was the first one to use the word "relativity".


Let us recall

that the time to travel a transverse distance for a radar signal and its echo is 1 / g = 2 times longer than in a system at rest. The round trip time along the translation x-axis is even longer:

The transverse time is:  1 / g  =  2 times longer.

The on-axis time is:  1 / g ^ 2  =  4 times longer.

In order to cancel the time difference, one can make the x path two times shorter like this:


The axial contraction according to g = .5 cancels the time difference on a go and return trip.

This was FitzGerald and Lorentz's hypothesis in order to explain Michelson's null result.

However, the whole round trip duration is still two times longer.

The same constraints apply to all mechanisms because all effects are caused by waves. 

Finally, the electron frequency is two times lower, clocks are ticking two times slower, etc.



Lorentz showed in 1904 that the axial contraction according to g in the absence of transverse contraction fully explains Michelson's results.
He used Maxwell's equations, but actually the problem was not that complicated.

First of all, let us admit that Lorentz's equations produce longer distances for x' and higher values for t' while he explains that distances should rather be shorter and that clocks should run slower. Clearly, his goal was to cancel the "space and time transformation" which had already occurred. Lorentz explained that it was a mathematical artifice. So the reversed equation set rather indicates the contraction and the slower hours. What is more, both Lorentz and Einstein spoke about contraction and slower hours according to g. So the correct equation set for this is undoubtedly:

x'  =  g * x

t' =  g * t

If a time delay is involved, one must add the regular translation formula (Galileo's well known  v * t  which becomes beta * t here because of light-second units), and also the time shift according to beta * x (scroll down for the clock synchronization procedure). 

x' =  g * x + beta * t

t'  =  g * t beta * x

This reversed equation set cannot be questioned because it is consistent with both Lorentz and Einstein's theories, and also because it produces Lorentz's Doppler effect (this result alone is a flawless demonstration).

Finally, the Lorentz transformations appear quite simple, and one can easily verify that extracting x from the first equation and t from the second one reproduces Lorentz's original equation set. The only difference is swapped variables in order to contract matter and time units instead of dilating space and time. In spite of its simplicity, and as far as I know, this reversed equation set was never published up to now. It is frankly surprising, shocking actually.

The computer can clearly display how the contraction works. Here is an example for the Michelson interferometer: 



The Michelson interferometer (v = 1/3 c; g = .9428).

The arm length for the first lambda / 2 phase shift (finally cancelled) is:  = lambda / (4 * (1 g)).

On the left-hand side, the .5 wavelength difference between orthogonal paths should become visible.

However, on the right-hand side, the 94% horizontal contraction produces a null result.

Distance units as well as the light wavelength never change along a transverse axis (vertical here).

Please observe that standing wave nodes, two per wavelength, are still present on the horizontal x-axis.


The standing wave method.

It should be pointed out that waves on a go and return trip always produce standing waves, hence nodes and antinodes which are still present on the translation x-axis in spite of the wavelength difference. Each node position is clearly visible on the animated diagrams shown above and the null result becomes undisputable.

Michelson's wave speed method was misleading because speed involves both space and time, whose units may differ from one frame of reference to another. The standing wave method involves only space or wavelength units, which are absolute (they never change) on a transverse y or z axis. So the standing wave method instead of Michelson's calculus based on relative wave speed is preferable.

Especially, the absence of transverse contraction definitely sheds some new light on the Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment. Clearly, any shorter distance for the interferometer's second arm makes no difference because transverse wavelength never changes. This distance is used only as a reference before and after the 90° rotation, so it could be just one wavelength long as well.

The standing wave method indicates that Kennedy and Thorndyke were wrong.

Actually, the second arm is totally useless. It can be removed, and the result is the simpler Hertz test or the Fabry-Perot cavity. Both of them also yield a null result after a 90° rotation because of the contraction.

This is not my idea. In spite of its two arms still present (the goal is to instantly detect gravitational waves without the 90° rotation), the TAMA Interferometer in Japan contains an additional semi-transparent mirror. The huge distance allows a much more important multiplication effect, but it nevertheless works the same way the standard Fabry-Perot cavity does. Clearly, standing waves are involved. The author of this idea of combining the Fabry-Perot cavity to an interferometer deserves the warmest congratulations. 



Transverse distances are directly measurable, but distances along the translation x-axis are not. A contraction occurs, and the problem is even more complicated because of the time shift and the slower hours.

The radar proves to be a privileged tool because the time problem can be partially ruled out. Firstly, the whole go and return trip time can be measured by the same clock. This avoids the time shift. Secondly, the signal position can also be monitored by observers whose distance is to be measured. This rather reveals the time shift. Thus one can more easily understand why Lorentzian Relativity holds true.

A' to B' distance.

Observers A' and B' below are moving at .866c on the same x-axis. In order to establish a more convenient clock synchronization procedure, they must firstly measure the distance to each other. Otherwise, they could not take the radio signal velocity into account.

Let us remind that along the translation x-axis, the time for a radar signal and its echo to perform the whole go and return trip for a given distance is four (4) times longer than in a system at rest. But it is only two times longer between A' and B' than between unmoving A and B because the actual distance is two times shorter.

The wave mean velocity on a go and return trip is:  1 / g ^ 2  =  4 times slower.

However, A' and B' have no indication that they are moving. In accordance with the law of Relativity, they must postulate that they are at rest and that a two (2) seconds round trip time indicates a one light-second distance (300 000 km or 186,282 miles).

On the one hand, those 2 slower seconds are actually four (4) absolute seconds.

On the second hand, waves are four (4) times slower on a go and return trip.

The radar waves need four seconds to travel a .5 light-second distance on a go and return trip. But these four seconds as recorded by either A' or B' seem to be only two seconds because of their slower clocks. So they conclude that the distance to each other is one light-second.

It turns out that the correct A' to B' distance is only .5 light-second. This is consistent with Lorentz's contraction hypothesis according to g = .5. Surprisingly, along the translation axis, distances (not just matter) also contract as a result of Lorentz's New Mechanics because all forces also transform. Especially, matter mass for beta = .866 is doubled according to the gamma factor. This mass gain is kinetic energy which mainly acts on the translation axis and not at all on transverse y and z axes.

Now, let us examine how A' and B' should synchronize clocks.



So let us suppose again that observers A' and B' are moving on the same x-axis at the same .866 c speed. B' is in front of A', so light or radio waves are much faster from B' to A' because of the Doppler effect. The distance to each other is .5 light-second, but their radar rather indicates one light-second. As seen above, this occurs because the radar signal on a go and return trip propagates 4 times slower and because their clocks are ticking 2 times slower.

Firstly, A' informs B' that he will send a radio signal at 00:00:00 hour in order to synchronize clocks. However, they both think that the distance is one light-second, so B' is reminded to add one second for the delay upon reception: 00:00:01. In addition, the radar signal from A' to B' is actually very slow: 1 beta  =  .134 c. The true delay for the signal to reach B' is 1 / .134 / 2 = 3.732 seconds. During this time, A' will see his clock advance from 0 to 3.732 / 2 = 1.866 slow seconds. Finally, when B' adjusts his clock to 1 second, the A' clock is in advance because it rather displays 1.866 seconds. The time shift is: 1 1.866 = .866 slow second for x = 1 and x' = g x = .5.

Thus the time shift for B' as compared to A' where: x = x' = t = t' = 0 is simply given by:  

beta * x

This is consistent with the Lorentz transformations (Lorentz's Doppler reversed equations):

x'  =  g x + beta * t

t'  =  g t beta * x

Here, beta = .866, g = .5, t = 0, x = 1, x' = .5 and finally, t' = beta = .866 slow second.

Please note that clocks placed at the rear are in advance, hence the minus sign for observer B'. This does not mean that the absolute time is not the same everywhere. More simply, causes are transmitted by force waves, which relative speed as compared to the frame of reference is slower while traveling forward. Most often, events have many causes. For any given all-azimuth distance, those at the rear must be created in advance in order to take effect simultaneously on a given atom.

Surprisingly, this procedure yields exactly the same results if B' instead of A' sends the synchronization signal, which is faster backward according to 1 + beta = 1.866 c. The delay for .5 light-second is: 1 / 1.866 / 2 = .26795 absolute second and A' will then adjust his clock to 1 second. During this time, B' will see his clock advance from 0 to .26795 / 2 = .134 slow second and A' clock will finally be in advance according to the same beta time shift for B'.

It should be emphasized that regular standing waves contract axially according to a more severe g squared. However, too severe a contraction, as well as no contraction at all, would allow A' and B' to detect a time anomaly and deduce their speed through the aether from it. Using the try and error method, Lorentz found that the equilibrium point was attained for x' = g x. In such a case, a slower rate of time must be added to the time shift: t' = g t.

The point is: A' and B' can still exchange light or radio signals and even TV images apparently without any anomaly in spite of their enormous speed through the aether. All happens exactly as if they were perfectly at rest.

Clearly, up to now, Lorentz's relativity works.



Now, let us examine why a moving observer always thinks that he is at rest. Please bear in mind that the following demonstration is simply logic. The calculus is quite simple and the results are not disputable any more because Lorentz's hypothesis works.

As compared to Einstein's Special Relativity, the main difference is surely the fact that observers A and B below are truly at rest with respect to the aether. The Cartesian absolute frame of reference is unique: it is not the preferred one, it is the only one. The constant position for observer A is the origin where x = 0 and it is rather x = 1 light-second (300 000 km) for observer B.

On the one hand, because A and B do not move, they do not undergo the Lorentz transformations. They do not experience the virtual Doppler effect either. Thus, because of their privileged situation, the recorded data are perfectly exact. They can observe A' and B' without any distortion. 

On the other hand, A' and B' are moving. They are truly undergoing the Lorentz transformations:

1 – The contraction according to g applies, so the distance to each other is only .5 light-second.

2 – Their clocks are displaying slower seconds according to g, hence .5 second instead of 1 second.

3 – The time shift for B' as compared to A' is –.86603 slow second.

Please note that light or radio waves emitted from their instruments undergo a frequency reduction according to g because they are emitted by moving electrons, which frequency is also slower. In addition, while receiving unaltered waves from A and B, A' and B' are experiencing the virtual Doppler effect. In the presence of so many anomalies, one surely expects surprising results. Actually, they are amazing.

Let us remind the reversed Lorentz transformations, which indicate matter contraction instead of space dilation:

x' =  g * x + beta * t

t'  =  g * t beta * x

Additionally, x for A is always 0 while x for B is always 1. Then formulas are even simpler:

for A':   x' =  beta * t            t'  =  g * t

for B':   x' =  g + beta * t            t'  =  g * t beta

A decisive test.

The goal is to explain why A' and B' still think that they are at rest. Clearly, they will record incorrect data from A and B as a result of their own transformations. The diagram below shows four successive positions for them. It also shows x' and t' magnitudes for each of them according to absolute t time for both A and B:



It should be emphasized that Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein all explained that A and B should see A' and B' this way. Thus, equations and graphics are not disputable.

This test is based on the fact that direct comparison is possible between observers when they come very close to each other. Then the delay for light or radio waves becomes negligible. Especially, A and A' can synchronize clocks without any doubt. Let us firstly examine this. 


A and A' come very close to each other where x = 0. They can synchronize clocks to t = t' = 0.

It was demonstrated above that B' will synchronize his own clock according to: beta.


Clearly, Lorentz's reversed equations yield correct results for x' and t'. This is how Poincaré and Einstein describe how A and B would see A' and B'. Inversely, A' and B' would rather see A and B undergoing the Lorentz transformations, and they are also correct on this.

But they both failed to admit that A and B only are right.

This is the absolute situation according to Lorentz. There is no true reciprocity. So A' and B' are definitely wrong.

What is wrong with A' and B'?

Now, let us see why A' and B' still think that they are at rest.

The graphics below shows what is going on after a  t = 1.1547 second delay while A' and B' moved exactly to one light-second forward according to Galileo's  x' = x + v * t, here beta * t = 1.


A' and B meet  1.1547 seconds later.

B observes that the A' clock is really two times slower because it indicates only .57735 second.

But A' and B' still observe wrongfully that A and B are moving leftward.


A' meets B. Because his own clock displays only .57735 second, A' must deduce from it that the distance between A and B is only .5 light-second. Such a contraction is consistent with his illusion that A and B are moving in the opposite direction.

In addition, A' can observe without any doubt that the B clock displays 1.1547 seconds. He is not surprised either because he thinks that B is at the rear. In such a case, the time shift for him should be + beta with respect to A. He is also convinced that their clocks are ticking slower. The delay for them should represent .28868 second instead of .57735 and finally, adding + beta for the time shift indeed leads to 1.1547 seconds: .28868 + .86603 = 1.1547.

From his own point of view, all happens exactly as if A' was perfectly at rest. Amazingly, he can even transpose the Lorentz transformations to A and B.

This is Lorentzian Relativity. The science of illusion.


Hundreds of examples.

This page will examine many other similar experiences where Lorentz's Relativity holds true.

– The speed of light seems to be the same in all frames of reference, but it is not.

– Axial contraction cannot be detected using waves.

– Axial contraction cannot be detected using triangulation.

– The slower rate of time cannot be detected.

– Bradley's stellar aberration cannot reveal absolute velocity.

– Poincaré was wrong: optical phenomena cannot be reciprocal.

– Lorentz easily reconciles three or more systems whose speed is different. Einstein cannot.

– The Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern remains symmetric and undergoes the axial contraction.

– The Michelson interferometer must contract because the beam splitter angle must change.


The Michelson experiment and Bradley's stellar aberration were the first important evidences of Relativity. Henri Poincaré did examine them, but he never thought that matter really contracts. He rather tried to mathematically establish his "Relativity Postulate" by applying the Lorentz transformations to Maxwell's equations. On the contrary, Lorentz applied matter contraction to the Michelson interferometer. In this case it cannot mechanically detect any motion with respect to the aether.

 I am of an opinion that today's invasion of physics by mathematicians is a plague. They think that light is just an equation. They totally ignore what is going on inside electric fields or magnetic fields, but they do not mind because Maxwell's equations work. They reject the aether hypothesis without any valid demonstration simply because Lorentz's equations can make Maxwell's equations becoming invariant without any need for it.

Mathematicians are ignorant about mechanics and basic truths. Some of them speak about the "heuristic value of the theory of Relativity" but, actually, it is exactly the opposite. Up to the present, Einstein's theory was an impeachment to further discoveries because it is not logic. Scientists should be aware that physics is all about mechanics, not mathematics. Poincaré was interested in physics, but he was firstly a mathematician. On the contrary, Lorentz was a great physicist.

Lorentz was right in 1904. Unfortunately, he changed his mind later, firstly because he could not explain why matter should contract, but also surely because Einstein's theory (which is a copy of Poincaré's one) was very rapidly adopted. So he never went beyond this point. He did not suggest any of the experiments which are proposed on this site (mostly in the French page up to now), which are based on matter absolute contraction.

Apparently, nobody did, albeit many authors partially described Lorentzian Relativity. However, in the future, scientists will have no choice. Matter contraction is consistent with Relativity. Matter contraction is consistent with the aether. There is an alternative to Einstein's Relativity. It leads essentially to the same conclusions, but it is much better because it is not dogmatic any more: it is simply logic. For example, one can explain it without anomalies such as the famous "Twin Paradox".

The theory of Relativity is definitely true.

Let us call it the Law of Relativity because it is not a theory any more.

The law of Relativity.

Any moving observer can always postulate that he is at rest.

From this observer's point of view, any other apparently moving material body (even one perfectly at rest with respect to the aether) seems to undergo the Lorentz transformations. It also seems to act and react mechanically in accordance with its apparent velocity. However, one should be aware that this does not really occur and that the reverse situation according to the other point of view also seems to hold true. The contradiction is obvious, this simply cannot be, but elementary calculation shows that it is indeed what recorded data should indicate.

This leads to the very simple Law of Relativity below:


From its own point of view, any material entity seems at rest and other entities seem to act, react and undergo the Lorentz transformations in accordance with their apparent velocity.

 The law of Relativity.

Relativity is all about appearances, mystification, and illusion.

It is not what is really going on, it is just what any moving observer erroneously records.

The New Mechanics.

The important point is that scientists are now capable of explaining matter mechanics in an absolute way thanks to the Lorentz transformations. So let us go ahead. After more than a century wasted in a blind alley, there is a new theory of Absolute to discover because matter really behaves in an absolute way. The goal is to upgrade Newton's laws by applying the Lorentz transformations to matter and all forces.

The new laws will finally work because our world is a wave world. Matter is made of standing waves. Matter acts and reacts because of fields of force, which are also made of standing waves. Causes are waves and effects are caused by waves undergoing the Doppler effect.

There is a new Wave Mechanics to discover. It will dramatically improve science and physics.

The New Mechanics is much more important than Lorentzian Relativity.

Surprisingly, it was also Lorentz's discovery. Especially, he was aware that matter should contract and undergo a mass gain which is kinetic energy acting mainly on the translation axis. This means that additional forces act only according to the cosine of the angle. Newton's laws are finally correct on condition that inertia also increases according to the mass gain and the cosine of the angle. I already discovered that the whole process including the mass gain could easily be explained using active and reactive mass. "The New Mechanics" was Poincaré's phrase, but one may also call it the Wave Mechanics. However, it should be based on the electron, which is a spherical standing wave system, not on equations such as Eisenberg's and Schrödinger's.

In order to make things simple, the preferred frame of reference for a given system should be that of its center of inertia. Thus, action and reaction usually remain equal and the calculus is much simpler. It is especially the case for Newton's gravity formula, which does involve action and reaction. Taking into account the sun's orbit around a center of inertia should yield more precise results for Mercury's orbit, which is also surely modified by many other factors.

The results will finally explain the precession anomaly without weird ideas such as "space bending".

All phenomena will be explained thanks to the New Mechanics. There is no General Relativity because forces such as gravity are not relative. All forces are caused by fields of force, which are intermediate standing wave systems created between two or more pieces of matter as a result of the wave addition. They act in two opposite directions (hence the action and reaction law) according to their own intermediate speed because they are distinct entities which also undergo the Lorentz transformations. 


Please be patient. Rome was not built in a day.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | You are here. | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |


Gabriel LaFreniere,

Bois-des-Filion in Québec.

Email: Please read this notice.

On the Internet since September 2002. Last update January 28, 2008.