Prior to Einstein, a meter was defined to pertain to all observers. Worded differently, prior to Einstein, a meter was defined to be the same for all observers. But in Einstein’s space transformation, he is proposing that a meter for one observer not correspond with a meter for another observer. Einstein cannot make this proposal without first defining a meter for S and then for S’. In other words, Einstein must redefine meters per each observer, rather than per all observer (like it was defined before him).

To this purpose, Einstein says that increments of space and time (such as a meter or second) and events in space and time can only be defined for an observer by measuring devices. The measuring devices he mentions in his relativity paper of 1905 are "rigid rods" and "synchronized clocks". According to Einstein, the clocks have to be synchronized for an observer in order to be good clocks for that observer. And according to Einstein, the clocks have to be synchronized by light signals. Einstein finds that the clocks can only be synchronized for an observer as long as the rods and clocks are placed at rest to the observer. Therefore, increments of space and time and events in space and time can only be properly defined for an observer by certain measuring devices placed at rest to the observer.

We can envision a grid of these rods and clocks to be distributed throughout space and to be placed at rest to the observer in question. We can now lay a Cartesian coordinate system on top of this grid. This coordinate system now properly represents a system of space and time for the observer in question. This is why reference frames must be glued to observers in relativity theory.

As previously mentioned, Einstein says that the clocks have to be synchronized for an observer in order to be good clocks for that observer. Einstein also says that the clocks have to be synchronized by light signals. The basic assumption of relativity theory is that light travels isotropic to all observers of consideration. Einstein uses this assumption when synchronizing the clocks for a particular observer in question. It is for this reason that Einstein finds that the clocks can only be synchronized for an observer as long as the rods and clocks are placed at rest to the observer.

Walter Babin correctly asserts that Einstein has no right to claim that the clocks must be synchronized by light signals (i.e. as opposed to by other means). But further, why must the clocks be synchronized in the first place, in order to be good clocks? This process seems to be a convenient, though unjustified, tactic through which Einstein can redefine meters, seconds, and events per reference frame.

In any case, as we will see in just a moment, this synchronization process is purely theoretical. In other words, this synchronization process is not carried out in practice. The clocks which are used in practice are naturally disintegrating particles.

In 1897, JJ shot electrons through a tube at about 3/10 the speed of light. They were deflected electrically and magnetically before they hit a screen. A parabolic pattern at the screen was expected and a parabolic pattern at the screen was obtained. At this speed (3/10 the speed of light) there was no detectable deviation of the parabolas from what would be expected under an assumed constant charge to mass ratio of the electrons.

Five years later, others began to perform the same type of experiment JJ did; this time with the electrons traveling at 9/10 the speed of light. At this speed, there was a detectable deviation of the parabolas from what would be expected under an assumed constant charge to mass ratio of the electrons. Rather, the charge to mass ratio seemed to decrease as the speed of the electrons went up.

This can be interpreted in one of several ways. We can assume that the "inertial" mass of the electron goes up in such a case and that the charge of the electron remains constant. We can assume that the charge of the electron goes down in such a case and that the "inertial" mass remains constant. Or we could perhaps interpret that there is some combination of the two.

Lorentz and Abraham were developing theories to try to explain the results of these experiments. Both of them based their theories on the assumption that the "inertial" mass goes up in such a case and that the charge remains constant.

Lorentz’s theory stems from his assumption, already developed ten years prior, that materials contract when they move through the ether. Lorentz (and independently, Fitzgerald) developed this "hypothesis of contraction" in an attempt to rescue the "stationary" ether theory from the results of the Michelson Morley experiment (i.e. they assumed the interferometer contracted in the direction of the motion of the earth around the sun, which the ether was assumed to be at rest to). Since the electron is a material, it would contract, or flatten. This flattening somehow makes the "inertial" mass of the electron go up (I don’t know how).

Max Abraham’s theory is more reasonable. In fact, it is very desirable. In contrast to Lorentz, Abraham stuck to the reasonable assumption that the electron did not deform (i.e. it was rigid). Rather, Abraham assumed that, since the charge was traveling so fast, the field it created could not spread out before hitting the electron itself. Therefore, the electromagnetic field, which the electron created, would actually interfere with the electron itself. This self-interaction would cause the electron to have a greater resistance to accelerate when in the presence of external fields. This self-interaction could explain not only the increase of "inertial" mass, as indicated by experiment, but the very reason for "inertial" mass in the first place.

The great genius of Newton was intrigued by the apparent equivalence of the quantity called "inertial" mass with the quantity called "gravitational" mass. Why? Because they are associated with two entirely different things. One is associated with gravitation, and the other is associated with the objects resistance to accelerate, whatever the force may be. Around 1910, the genius of Millikan was to test the extent to which "gravitational" mass and "inertial" mass could be assumed to have the same quantity, in his famous oil-drop experiment. His findings indicated that the quantities do indeed match at least down to the molecular level.

But Max Abraham was providing us with the answer we had been searching for since the days of Newton. He was telling us that the whole identity of "inertial" mass resides in the self-interaction of charges upon themselves.

Naturally disintegrating particles of a particular kind (i.e. cesium; meson) have a very well defined lifetime when they remain at rest to the earth. In fact, some of the world’s most accurate clocks run on cesium disintegration.

However, when these particles are accelerated to great speeds (i.e. with respect to the earth), they seem to live longer. We know this because mesons are created in our upper atmosphere. We know how fast they travel after they are born. We also know that some of them make it down to the surface of the earth. If the mesons only lived as long as they do when they are at rest to the earth, then there is no way they would make it down here. In fact, they would travel no more than a few meters. But they travel miles.

We also know this because we can artificially create naturally disintegrating particles in laboratories and throw them. Again we find the same thing. They live longer.

We did not become aware of the increased lifetime of naturally disintegrating particles until sometime after Einstein created his Theory of Relativity. I don’t know when we became aware of it, but it was sometime after 1905.

Experiment suggests that the "inertial" mass of charges goes up when they travel at high velocities. Experiment suggests that the lifetime of naturally disintegrating particles goes up when they travel at high velocities. Experiment finds that the proportion which describes the velocity dependence of the "inertial" mass of a charge is the same as the proportion which describes the velocity dependence of the lifetime of the particle. This proportion is close to 1: sqrt(1- v²/ c²). I do not think it is just a coincidence that this proportion is the same.

To my knowledge, a naturally disintegrating particle is just an unstable atom. To my knowledge, we do not know what it is that causes these unstable atoms to disintegrate, or even what happens in the disintegration process. All we know is that this unstable atom is an atom one moment and then this atom is throwing out bits of matter which closely resemble the constituent parts of it the next moment. And we know how long it takes before it explodes. But I think it is pretty safe to assume that the disintegration process involves two or more charges spiraling in toward one another until they get too close to one another that some explosion occurs.

I believe that the reason why these unstable atoms live longer when they travel at great speeds is because the "inertial" mass of the constituent parts of the atom goes up in such a case. If the "inertial" mass of the electrons goes up, then it will take a longer time for the electrons to spiral into the nucleus.

As mentioned, experiment suggests that the "inertial" mass of charges goes up when they travel very fast. Experiment also suggests that the lifetime of naturally disintegrating particles goes up when they travel very fast. The relativistic explanation actually relies on the assumption that neither of these things really happens. Rather, the relativistic explanation says that it only appears as though the "inertial" mass goes up and that the lifetime goes up. Let me explain.

According to relativity theory, the lifetime of a naturally disintegrating particle defines a second (or fraction of a second) for any and all observers who happen to be at rest to the particle. According to relativity theory, the resistance of a charge to accelerate defines a gram (or fraction of a gram) for any and all observers who happen to be at rest to the charge. Therefore, according to relativity theory, the "inertial" mass of the fast moving charges, and the lifetime of the fast moving disintegrating particles, is still the same for the observers riding with these charges and particles (even though it appears to us that they increase).

In other words, the relativistic explanation begins with the assumption that the "inertial" mass of the charge, or the lifetime of the particle, remains the same (as it does when it is at rest to earth) as viewed by an observer riding with the particle or charge. But there is no observer riding with the particle or charge. That is why we have to assume it.

Only after this assumption has been made can the relativistic explanation go on to credit the apparent increase in "inertial" mass or lifetime to a modified (i.e. not one to one) correspondence of grams or seconds (as defined for us observers here on earth) with the same (as defined for a "fictitious" observer riding on the particle or charge). Since the apparent increase in lifetime of the particle (or "inertial" mass of the charge) agrees with the ratio of 1: sqrt(1- v²/ c²), which is spit out by the equations of relativity theory, these experiments are, in fact, considered evidence for SRT.

As mentioned above, the relativistic interpretation of the experiments (of fast moving charges and particles) relies on the assumption that the charges, as weighing scales, and particles, as clocks, remain reliable (for an observer at rest to them) even though they appear not to be so. Einstein is taking away our freedom to interpret when a measuring device is good and when a measuring device is bad. Einstein is saying, these measuring devices (charges and clocks) will always be good (for an observer at rest to them) even though they appear to be bad.

Let us say we have a mechanical watch. Let us say that this watch seems to work very well. Let us now say that we place this watch under water and that it stops. Are we going to interpret from this that time stops for all observers under water or are we going to interpret that the watch is not water proof? Of course we will interpret the latter. But why? We interpret that the watch is not water proof because we use our common sense to judge that the watch is not a reliable watch when it is placed under water. In other words, we refuse to place more faith in the watch as a reliable measuring device than we do in our judgment as to whether or not the watch can be considered reliable in such a case.

Let us now say that this watch is not a mechanical watch, but a clock which is based on cesium disintegration. Again, this cesium clock seems to keep time very well. In fact, it keeps time even more accurately than did the mechanical watch. However, when we accelerate this clock to great speeds, it slows. Are we going to interpret from this that time slows for all observers riding on the particle or that the cesium clock is not speed proof? Relativity Theory interprets the former. This is because relativity theory places the utmost of faith in the cesium clock as a good clock.

As mentioned, relativity theory reconciles the decreased deflection of fast moving charges to a modified correspondence of grams between an earth observer and a "fictitious" observer riding on the charge. This is Einstein’s mass transformation as viewed by the earth observer. But there is another explanation. This is that the electron will flatten (i.e. contract) just like as in Lorentz’s explanation. This is Einstein’s space contraction.

My problem with these two explanations is the following: According to relativity theory, both transformations should occur. But only one explanation is necessary to explain the data. If both are assumed to occur, then relativity theory would predict an expected decreased deflection which is too much.

As mentioned, relativity theory reconciles the increased lifetime of fast moving naturally disintegrating particles to a modified correspondence of seconds between the earth observer and the "fictitious" observer riding on the particle. But there is another explanation. This is that the particle observer views the entire earth and its atmosphere to contract. This way, even though the particle observer only thinks he travels three meters during the lifetime of the particle, the three meters is enough to travel the distance of the atmosphere (i.e. because it is contracted).

My problem with these two explanations is the following: To summarize, we have that the earth observer views the time of the particle to dilate and that the particle observer views the space of the earth to contract. But what about the earth observer viewing the space of the particle to contract and the particle observer viewing the time of the earth to dilate? These two modifications go unmentioned in relativity literature (because, of course, they mess up the explanation). My argument here has nothing to do with the whole Twin Paradox type argument, which accuses relativity of a contradiction. I am not trying to accuse relativity of a contradiction. I am only questioning the logic as to why it is that the time dilation (from the point of view of the earth observer) and the space contraction (from the point of view of the particle observer) is discussed, but the time dilation (from the point of view of the particle observer) and space contraction (from the point of view of the earth observer) are not discussed. This relativistic explanation seems biased.