## Questioning Einstein’s Theory of Relativity

.

### III. FIELD, RELATIVITY – Time, distance, relativity

Once more, the example of the moving room with outside and inside observers will be used. Again a light signal is emitted from the centre of the room and again we ask the two men what they expect to observe, assuming only our two principles and forgetting what was previously said concerning the medium through which the light travels. We quote their answers:

The inside observer: The light signal travelling from the centre of the room will reach the walls simultaneously, since all the walls are equally distant from the light source and the velocity of light is the same in all directions.

The outside observer: In my system, the velocity of light is exactly the same as in that of the observer moving with the room. It does not matter to me whether or not the light source moves in my c.s. since its motion does not influence the velocity of light. What I see is a light signal travelling with a standard speed, the same in all directions. One of the walls is trying to escape from and the opposite wall to approach the light signal. Therefore, the escaping wall will be met by the signal a little later than the approaching one. Although the difference will be very slight if the velocity of the room is small compared with that of light, the light signal will nevertheless not meet these two opposite walls, which are perpendicular to the direction of the motion, quite simultaneously.

Comparing the predictions of our two observers, we find a most astonishing result which flatly contradicts the apparently well-founded concepts of classical physics. Two events, i.e., the two light beams reaching the two walls, are simultaneous for the observer on the inside, but not for the observer on the outside. In classical physics, we had one clock, one time flow, for all observers in all c.s. Time, and therefore such words as “simultaneously”, “sooner”, “later”, had an absolute meaning independent of any c.s. Two events happening at the same time in one c.s. happened necessarily simultaneously in all other c.s.

.

In this thought experiment, the outside observer is at DL0, which is an inertia-less coordinate system. The inside observer is at, say DL150, which is a coordinate system very high on inertia scale. This is also the coordinate system of the source of light and the room. Light itself is at DL50, which is a coordinate system at the low end of the inertia scale.

The higher is the disturbance on the inertia scale the lower is its velocity. The velocity of the source (VS) is many orders of magnitudes (maybe 2100) slower than the speed of light (VL), relative to ether. Therefore, the contribution of the speed of source to the speed of light is virtually undetectable.

To the outside observer at DL0, VS would be extremely small compared to VL but not zero. To him both VS and VL shall be constant. To the inside observer at DL150, velocity of the source (VS) is zero, and the velocity of light (VL) shall appear to be the same in all directions.

Let’s look at Einstein’s thought experiment from the perspective of the Disturbance Hypothesis. Suppose the length of the room in the direction of travel is 2d and the source of light is at the center of the room. When the room is stationary, the light will travel the same distance to reach the front and back walls of the room.

Suppose the room travels to the right at a velocity VS along with the source of light and the inside observer. It travels a distance Δd in time Δd/VS. The light will still travel a distance d to the front and back walls from the perspective of the inside observer at DL150. However, it will travel a distance d+Δd to the front wall and a distance d-Δd to the back wall from the perspective of the outside observer at DL0.

From the perspective of DL0 (outside observer) the speed of light does not change. It takes slightly longer to reach the front wall than to the back wall because of the change in the distances. This shall be accounted for by the movement of the room. But from the perspective of DL150 (inside observer), who is not aware of the motion of the room, the speed of light would seem to slow down in the direction of the front wall and increase in the direction of the back wall. In reality, this difference would be undetectable because the velocity at DL150 is many orders of magnitude lower than the velocity of light at DL50.

Thus, Einstein’s conclusion that “the two light beams reaching the two walls, are simultaneous for the observer on the inside” is incorrect.

Einstein’s theory of relativity is formulated on a “matter-centric” conclusion of Michelson-Morley’s experiment that the velocity of light is constant in all coordinate systems with respect to matter. That experiment is not conclusive from the perspective of the Disturbance Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis the velocity of light is constant in the coordinate systems with respect to ether at DL0, and not to the coordinate systems with respect to matter at DL150 and above, but that difference is so small that it is practically undetectable.

.

• MarkNR  On March 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Have you ever see the Cal Tech series, The Mechanical Universe, Episode 42, The Lorentz Transformation? In this episode, the space-time graph is displayed in 3D and in motion. It thoroughly explains simultaneous, non-simultaneous events according to viewpoint, to my satisfaction. The progression of the 3 dimensional graph simulates the 4th dimension quite well.

The actual observed warpage or skewing of time and distance has proved accurate according to the geometry of the graph. By turning and tilting the chart, the the simultaneous and non simultaneous nature of events according to relative motion is rendered entirely sensible.

Dr. David Goodstein lays out the principles very well. Here is a youtube link

Episode 43, Velocity and Time is also excellent at resolving the assumed paradoxes of time-space-distance-events.
Mark

Like

• vinaire  On March 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM

No I haven’t seen this video and i shall watch it. However, Lorentz Transformation is based on an assumption that I think is flawed.

From Wilipedia:

In physics, the Lorentz transformation (or transformations) is named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz. It was the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. The Lorentz transformation is in accordance with special relativity, but was derived before special relativity.

In my view the speed of light is not independent of the reference frame of matter.
.

Like

• MarkNR  On March 24, 2014 at 11:06 PM

But Vin, the speed of light is in a reference frame of matter. Just a different reference frame to each individual piece of matter and it’s own state of inertia.

When each point of matter is viewed as a line traveling through time, rather than an instantaneous point in space, it all falls together. It all clicks together with the geometry of the graph.
Worth a look.
Mark

Like

• vinaire  On March 25, 2014 at 9:12 AM

I watched the video. It is quite informative. Both Lorentz and Einstein arrived at the same equation but from different angles. Lorentz was a classical scientist who still believed in ether. Einstein on the other hand simply discarded ether in favor of a different kind of understanding. But both looked at the stable datum of “motion” being senior to the earlier stable data of “space” and “time.”

I also believe that “motion” is a datum senior to the datum of “space” and “time.” Space and time do not have to be constant in their “characteristics.” I agree that space and time should be looked upon as “components of motion” instead of looking at motion as a function of space and time. The question now arises if “motion” is the ultimate senior datum?

Both Lorentz and Einstein seem to treat “motion” as the ultimate senior datum in terms of speed of light. I question that.

To me the idea of an “inertia-less field” is more fundamental to “motion”.

.

Like

• vinaire  On March 25, 2014 at 6:25 AM

Michelson-Morley’s experiment simply showed that the measured speed of light was the same regardless of the firection and motion of earth.

If we look at light as a certain disturbance in ether, that has a certain speed of propagation in speherically expanding form; and if we look at earth as another disturbance that also has a certain speed of propagation in speherically expanding form, only then can we appreciate the relativity between the two speeds.

The motion of the earth around the Sun is not the same as motion of earth as a disturbance through ether. To compare apples to apples, we need to measure the motion of earth through ether. How do we do that?

The very assumption of ether used in Michelson-Morley’s experiment seems to be incorrect.

Per de Broglie’s hypothesis, all matter behaves as a wave too. The frequency at the level of matter is very, very high, such that the forward propagation of that disturbance in background ether would be almost halted. Maybe the disturbance backs up on itself and goes round and round at the same location.

We me be looking at two different velocities here:

(1) Internal velocity, such as the velocity of an electron around the nucleus. This would compare to the velocity of a disturbance, such as light.

(2) External velocity, such as, velocity of the whole atom relative to other atoms. This would not compare to the velocity of a disturbance, such as light.

The motion of earth around the sun would be like the external velocity, whereas, the velocity of light in ether would be more like the internal velocity.

So, the Michelson’s-Morley’s experiment did not compare apples to apples. It compared apples to oranges. The result of that experiment are, therefore, not acceptable.

If the internal velocity of matter is due to the disturbance going round and round at one location, then its propagation in ether is practically zero, no matter what the external velocity is.

My conclusion is that the results of Michelson-Morley’s experiment needs to be re-interpreted.

Like

• vinaire  On March 25, 2014 at 6:31 AM

The situation here is more like a drum revolving inside another drum, and comparing the tangential velocities at the rim of the two drums,

If we compare the linear motion of the whole inside drum to the peripheral velocity of the outside rotating drum, then we don’t have the correct comparison.

Like

• vinaire  On March 25, 2014 at 6:38 AM

Think of a spinning top inside a fast rotating drum. There is the tangential velocity of a point at the rim of the spinning top. There is also the velocity of the whole spinning top as it meanders around..

Which velocity of the top shall we compare with the tangential velocity of a point at the rim of the outside spinning drum?

What is apples to apples?

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 25, 2014 at 6:39 PM

If we were to find the apples to be recursive and self similar then we might not find firmly identical apples but rather processes at work and only our abstraction of those processes to provide the identification. At the macro scale we see this in processes like snowflake building and planet building ~ no two alike.

Could quanta be like this?

Like

• MarkNR  On March 27, 2014 at 2:57 AM

Something spinning inside something spinning. This is actually a very important point to the ideas of relativity. Linear motion and inertia are relative to any point or object you are looking from. But spinning, angular momentum, aligns with the universe as a whole. When you really look at it, it completely defies relativity. If you are on the inside surface of a hollow spinning container, you are spinning and feeling the effects of angular momentum, no matter what you think the Univ. is doing. You are feeling the effects of the universe in which the container is contained. This puzzled me for a moment over 40 yrs. ago, but I let it pass.

Question: Is the universe spinning as a whole, and has it been spinning from the start? Could that spinning be slowing down and angular momentum is being converting to linear motion, thereby increasing the expansion speed of the universe as gravity’s grip declines with distance ? In that case, the rate of increase in the speed of expansion will decline with time.
Just a thought
Mark

Like

• vinaire  On March 27, 2014 at 5:25 AM

We need to design new experiments to get some experimental data.

(1) We need experimental data to relate frequency to momentum and velocity for radio waves at one end of the spectrum and for x-rays at the other end of the spectrum.

(2) We need to study an atom better regarding the interface between space and electronic shell, and the interface between the electronic shell and the nucleus.

(3) There seem to be quantum jump in disturbance from space (DL0) to electronic shell (DL50) to the nucleus (DL150). This jump needs to be studied closely.
.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 28, 2014 at 6:11 AM

Love these great questions corresponding to a fresh model.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 28, 2014 at 6:09 AM

MarkNR: Could that spinning be slowing down and angular momentum is being converting to linear motion, thereby increasing the expansion speed of the universe as gravity’s grip declines with distance ? In that case, the rate of increase in the speed of expansion will decline with time.

Chris: Love this. Fresh. Illustrates how we do not fully grasp the entire bundle of processes at work. Could the original big bang have energetically provided “escape velocity” for the singularity from itself? Was gravity always present? Or is gravity as a property of this newest universe a property that developed later as the first few Planck seconds passed? How meaningful were the first Planck seconds? Galaxies seemed still glued together by the gravity of their isolated frame of reference and so do not themselves fly apart. But what about intergalactic space? Not enough mass there and so the galaxies fly apart from one another is one way of looking at it. What would the weight of a 200 lb man be on an Earth that stopped spinning? We guess at the beginnings and try to make consistent using math and when we do, our own models of the universe grow . . . And so on we go.

Like

• MarkNR  On March 28, 2014 at 10:19 PM

I tickles me that field artillery computers automatically adjust for the rotation of the earth, whether firing east with the rotation or west against the rotation, or north or degrees in between.

Like

• vinaire  On March 25, 2014 at 6:41 AM

What is missing here is the knowledge of what happens to a disturbance (electromagnetic wave) when the frquency becomes very, very high?

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 25, 2014 at 6:58 PM

That may stay missing for yet a while. There is no laboratory on earth up to the task of producing this hypothesized wavelength.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 25, 2014 at 9:04 PM

And its space becomes very very small.

Like

• vinaire  On March 25, 2014 at 6:49 AM

The Theory of Relativity uses the Lorentz Transformation.

The Lorentz transformation is simply a mathematical explanation of a seemingly misinterpreted result of Michelson-Morley’s experiment.

Like

• vinaire  On March 25, 2014 at 8:10 PM

It is interesting to realize that in a single hydrogen atom the three disturbance levels, DL0 (ether), DL50 (light) and DL100 (matter) are present.

DL0 is the space surrounding the atom. DL50 is the electronic shell, and DL100 is the nucleus. How interesting these three levels are so prominent.
.

Like

• vinaire  On March 25, 2014 at 8:12 PM

There ought to be a distinct “surface” between space and the electronic shell, and another “surface” between the electronic shell and the nucleus.
.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 25, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Maybe. Unless we look close enough?

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 26, 2014 at 3:00 AM

We should consider the ideas of barriers, surfaces and hard lines between DLs to be apparency only — the result of our abstraction.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 26, 2014 at 3:01 AM

Unless we have discrete energy states. These planes might provide surfaces and quantum jumps between energy states.

Like

• vinaire  On March 25, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Could it be that at very high frequencies the electromagnetic wave collapses on itself?

The electronic shell surrounds the nucleus. That means DL100 has collapsed on itself to form the nucleus, and DL50 has collapsed around it to form the shell.
.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 25, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Vin: The electronic shell surrounds the nucleus. That means DL100 has collapsed on itself to form the nucleus, and DL50 has collapsed on itself to form the shell.

Chris: To my mind, we are talking about space. But then because of the empty connotation we give space, possibly the basic space is a singularity. But space is elastic and both stretches and collapses. Earlier than now space DL0 was more dense and of smaller diameter. Today, DL0 having first stretched, then recondensed upon itself is a later version of the denser version of the singlarity DL0.

Or maybe DL0-DL100 represents the spectrum of the original version of the singularity.

However, just like the background radiation of the original Big Bang, the original singularity should still be present and all about us.

Or is it? This problem of wavelengths, densities, collapses, fields and forces reminds me of the incongruous particle-wave duality of light. It’s first one, then it’s the other, then its both, but possibly its neither. What this means to me it that there are processes going on around us and we abstract. Reality is something that we each experience and that is what reality is — an abstraction. There is the objectivity of processes occurring, but at their root, these processes do not conform to what abstraction we assert matches the process.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 26, 2014 at 3:37 AM

Would this physically be like anything that we know about? What would this be like?

Like

• vinaire  On March 25, 2014 at 8:40 PM

The higher the disturbance level, the tighter seems to be the collapse. The electronic shell in hydrogen atom seems to be at DL51.5, which is pretty close to the disturbance level of light. It seems to collapsed because of the nucleus.

The question now is, “How is the nucleus formed?”
.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On March 25, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Vin: The question now is, “How is the nucleus formed?”

chris: Possibly we have to look to the most energetic and violent places in the universe such as the hearts of stars and black holes to find a laboratory to fathom such collapse of space.

Like