Space-Time in the Scientific Frame

Reference: The Scientific Frame of Reference

Space and time seems to vary in their characteristics with inertia of objects and particles. Therefore, we must consider space and time of objects and particles in terms of their inertia.

The primary forms of inertia are frequency (for a wave) and mass (for a particle).

In the wave-frequency form of inertia, inertial space is defined by the wavelength, and the inertial time is defined by the period of the wave.

As frequency decreases, the inertial space expands, and so does time. At the limiting frequency of zero, inertia also approaches zero. The space acts as the unlimited background of the Cosmos, against which finite extents of waves and particles could be viewed. The time also acts as the unlimited background against which the finite durations of waves and particles could be viewed.

The background of the Cosmos is characterized by unlimited extent of space and time. This background offers no inertia or resistance to change.

In the particle-mass form of inertia, the inertial space is defined by the shape, and the inertial time is defined by the duration, of the particle.

As mass increases, the inertial space contracts, and so does time. At the limiting value of infinite mass, inertia also becomes infinite. The space reduces to a point location against the background of the Cosmos. The time reduces to a completely durable state against a background that allows any change.

The content of the Cosmos is made up of waves and particles of varying extents, and durations. It offers inertia or resistance to change to various degrees.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On March 11, 2015 at 7:48 PM

    I always wondered where did the expression √(1 – v2/c2) came from. Now I know. It came originally from the calculations made for the Michelson-Morley’s experiment in 1887. It can be calculated with simple geometry and algebra (see Understanding Physics by Isaac Asimov) when the following assumptions are made:

    (1) The universe is filled with ether with an absolute motion of zero.
    (2) Absolute motion of objects may be determined by using ether as the reference.
    (3) Earth would experience an “ether wind” as it moves through ether.
    (4) Light from a light source attached to earth can move along and against this ether wind.
    (5) Light from this same light source can also move across the ether wind.
    (6) The time taken by light in cases #4 and #5 will be different and may be compared.
    (7) The ratio of these times is √(1 – v2/c2) for the same distance.

    It was found that there is no such stationary ether, or relative ether wind. So, this mathematical expression should be irrelevant at least in this case.


  • vinaire  On March 11, 2015 at 7:59 PM

    This expression occurred once again in 1893 to explain FritzGerald contraction. Fitzgerald proposed that all objects grew shorter in the direction of their absolute motion, being shortened, so to speak, by the pressure of the ether wind. Here following additional assumption was made.

    (1) The inertia of ether is infinite.

    Since there is no ether of infinite inertia, this use of the expression √(1 – v2/c2) is also irrelevant.


    • vinaire  On March 11, 2015 at 8:11 PM

      (From Understanding Physics by Isaac Asimov)

      Lorentz went on to show that if the Fitzgerald contraction is applied to subatomic particles carrying an electric charge, one could deduce that the mass of a body must increase with motion in just the same proportion as its length decreases. In short, if its mass while moving is (m) and its rest-mass is (m0) then:

      m = m0 / √(1 – v2/c2)


      Since there is no ether with infinite inertia, this Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is not valid.


    • vinaire  On March 11, 2015 at 8:35 PM

      (From Understanding Physics by Isaac Asimov)

      But the very rapidly moving charged subatomic particles possessing velocities up to 0.99 times that of light increase markedly in mass… The mass of such particles can be obtained by measuring their inertia… Charged particles can be made to curve in a magnetic field. This is an acceleration imposed upon them by the magnetic force, and the radius of curvature is the measure of the inertia of the particle and therefore of its mass.

      From the curvature of the path of a particle moving at low velocity, one can calculate the mass of the particle and then predict what curvature it will undergo when it passes through the same magnetic field at higher velocities, provided its mass remains constant. Actual measurement of the curvatures for particles moving at higher velocities showed that such curvatures were less marked than was expected. Furthermore, the higher the velocity, the more the actual curvature fell short of what was expected. This could be interpreted as an increase in mass with velocity, and when this was done the relationship followed the Lorentz equation exactly.


      There seems to be a big inconsistency here along with a chance coincidence. There is no ether with infinite inertia. Therefor there cannot be Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, and no increase in the mass of the subatomic particle. Experimentally, the subatomic particle is traveling with lesser curvature at higher velocities. Thus, it is approaching the behavior of light that travels in straight lines.

      But light is without mass. Could it be that the subatomic particle, as it travels at higher velocities, is acquiring more light-like properties than mass? Could it be that inertia of the subatomic particle is transitioning from particle-mass to wave-frequency at higher velocities?

      The experimental data can be interpreted in different ways.


    • vinaire  On March 11, 2015 at 8:53 PM

      If the charge particles in the above experiments were electrons, then, at higher velocities they were actually losing mass, and also charge as well, They were influenced less by the magnetic field not because of increasing mass but because of lessening charge.

      This shows that the concepts of inertia, mass and charge are somehow intertwined.


  • vinaire  On March 31, 2015 at 12:10 AM

    I have revised the above article “Space-Time in the Scientific Frame” for greater clarity.


%d bloggers like this: