Theory of Relativity & SRF


Per Maxwell’s equations, the speed of light ‘c’ is determined by the properties of space. Light appears to travel in space from one location to another as a transverse wave. From the model of a wave traveling in a medium it appears that the medium of light is space. The new idea here is that a non-material space acts as a medium. Up till now the medium was thought to be “ether” of material-like properties. That didn’t work out. So, what are the non-material properties of space as a medium?

Space, when disturbed seems to break into electric and magnetic fields. Space “doesn’t move”, but the disturbance in space (electromagnetic field) moves. This disturbance moves in such a way that the ratio of its wavelength to period is the constant ‘c’. This is what an electromagnetic wave is.

But light also moves at speed ‘c’ relative to uniformly moving material, regardless of how fast or how slow that material might be moving. Therefore, uniformly moving material has a velocity zero relative to space. It is “carrying space” with it, so to say. That is why no “ether wind” was discovered in Michelson-Morley’s experiments.

We have two different reference frames. The first is Galilean Reference or relativistic frame attached to matter called MRF (material frame of reference). The other is non-material reference frame attached to space called SRF (space frame of reference). The latter has never been considered in science. NOTE: The Lorentz transformations, like Galilean transformations are part of MRF.

We are conditioned to MRF. In it we see the distance changing uniformly between two uniformly moving material bodies moving towards each other or away from each other. But in SRF a uniformly moving material has a velocity zero relative to space. So, the distance is invariable, or it does not exist, between two uniformly moving material bodies.

In MRF we see time changing as a material body moves with uniform speed. In SRF the time is invariable, or it does not exist. The truth is that space and time exist in SRF as “wavelength” and “period” and the ratio between them is the constant ‘c’. All matter has infinitesimal wavelength and period. This gives us a uniform character of space and time in MRF. But in SRF this situation exists only at the upper end of the electromagnetic spectrum. MRF is, therefore, a specialized subset of SRF.

SRF gives us a much wider view of reality than MRF. This explains the relativistic “length contraction” and “time dilation” in terms of increasing or decreasing frequency. In MRF the frequency is collapsed beyond gamma range and appears to be “uniform”; and this gives us a uniform measure of length and time.

The relativistic world is understood much better when viewed through Space Reference Frame (SRF) derived directly from Maxwell’s Equations.

It appears that the speed ‘c’ can be attained only by an inertialess particle in MRF. As particle gains inertia its maximum attainable speed will reduce to a fraction of ‘c’. This is evident by the speed of electrons in MRF.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Reese Archer  On March 2, 2017 at 10:42 PM

    how do you figure all matter has an infinitesimal wavelength?


  • Reese Archer  On March 3, 2017 at 10:16 PM

    Infinity turns out to be the opposite of what people say it is. It is not ‘that which has nothing beyond itself’ that is infinite, but ‘that which always has something beyond itself’. (Aristotle)

    Belief in the existence of the infinite comes mainly from five considerations:

    From the nature of time – for it is infinite.
    From the division of magnitudes – for the mathematicians also use the notion of the infinite.
    If coming to be and passing away do not give out, it is only because that from which things come to be is infinite.
    Because the limited always finds its limit in something, so that there must be no limit, if everything is always limited by something different from itself.
    Most of all, a reason which is peculiarly appropriate and presents the difficulty that is felt by everybody – not only number but also mathematical magnitudes and what is outside the heaven are supposed to be infinite because they never give out in our thought. (Aristotle)
    With magnitudes the contrary holds. What is continuous is divided ad infinitum, but there is no infinite in the direction of increase. For the size which it can potentially be, it can also actually be. Hence since no sensible magnitude is infinite, it is impossible to exceed every assigned magnitude; for if it were possible there would be something bigger than the heavens. (Aristotle)

    Our account does not rob the mathematicians of their science, by disproving the actual existence of the infinite in the direction of increase, in the sense of the untraversable. In point of fact they do not need the infinite and do not use it. They postulate only that the finite straight line may be produced as far as they wish. (Aristotle)


  • Reese Archer  On March 3, 2017 at 10:22 PM

    there was no mention whatsoever in that link you provided of the infinitude of a wavelength. however, I am under the impression that the universe is an infinite SET of “things”.
    rather than thinking in sfr or mfr think in objective reality and subjective reality. the infinite subjective reality of things is contained within the objective reality as a set.


    • vinaire  On March 4, 2017 at 7:05 AM

      Wavelength goes to infinity as frequency goes to zero. This is only an assumed limiting condition, because there are no absolutes. This limiting condition is undisturbed SPACE.


      • Reese Archer  On March 10, 2017 at 11:30 AM

        0 is always infintely further away.


  • Reese Archer  On March 3, 2017 at 10:35 PM

    space is a relative term between “things” it isn’t the objective reality or the zero on the scale. space is possible only compared to non space. the relativity of things and space is seen as a divisible quality contained within the set (we can call this set “1′) 1 could represent the subjective (infinitely vibratory existence, in a direction of decrease) and 0 could represent the objective (stillness, non vibratory). 1 is not contained in 0 but rather 0 and 1 cap each other off to create the total set of things


    • vinaire  On March 4, 2017 at 7:08 AM

      You may postulate anything you want. To be valid it hs to be continuous, harmonious and consistent with observed reality.


  • Reese Archer  On March 3, 2017 at 10:36 PM

    0 is hypothetical


  • Reese Archer  On March 5, 2017 at 11:52 AM


    • vinaire  On March 5, 2017 at 11:58 AM

      This paradox is subjective. It is not real.


      • Reese Archer  On March 6, 2017 at 9:41 AM

        it is what i understand to be at the root of multiple universes theory


        • vinaire  On March 6, 2017 at 7:47 PM

          The multiple universe theory is subjective. It is not real. One can always call the set of multiple universes as THE UNIVERSE.


  • vinaire  On March 6, 2017 at 9:58 AM

    Here are my notes from Maxwell’s PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION (1873) of his book.

    Great variety of phenomena has been observed related to electrical attraction, and magnetic attraction… Electrical and magnetic phenomena have been found to be related to each other… Maxwell’s work is concerned with measurement of electrical and magnetic quantities, and the mathematical connections among them, so as to develop a mathematical theory of electromagnetism… Maxwell determines the relationship between electromagnetic theories and the Newton’s theory of motion.

    “The most important aspect of any phenomenon from a mathematical point of view is that of a measurable quantity.”

    “I have therefore thought that a treatise would be useful which should have for its principal object to take up the whole subject in a methodical manner, and which should also indicate how each part of the subject is brought within the reach of methods of verification by actual measurement.”

    “…before I began the study of electricity I resolved to read no mathematics on the subject till I had first read through Faraday’s Experimental Researches in Electricity.”

    “As I proceeded with the study of Faraday, I perceived that his method of conceiving the phenomena was also a mathematical one, though not exhibited in the conventional form of mathematical symbols. I also found that these methods were capable of being expressed in the ordinary mathematical forms, and thus compared with those of the professed mathematicians.

    “For instance, Faraday, in his mind’s eye, saw lines of force traversing all space where the mathematicians saw centres of force attracting at a distance : Faraday saw a medium where they saw nothing but distance : Faraday sought the seat of the phenomena in real actions going on in the medium, they were satisfied that they had found it in a power of action at a distance impressed on the electric fluids.

    “When I had translated what I considered to be Faraday’s ideas into a mathematical form, I found that in general the results of the two methods coincided, so that the same phenomena were accounted for, and the same laws of action deduced by both methods, but that Faraday’s methods resembled those in which we begin with the whole and arrive at the parts by analysis, while the ordinary mathematical methods were founded on the principle of beginning with the parts and building up the whole by synthesis.”

    Lines of Force = Method of Faraday… from the whole to parts by analysis

    Action at a Distance = Method of other mathematicians… from parts to the whole by synthesis

    “I have confined myself almost entirely to the mathematical treatment of the subject, but I would recommend the student, after he has learned, experimentally if possible, what are the phenomena to be observed, to read carefully Faraday’s Experimental Researches in Electricity. He will there find a strictly contemporary historical account of some of the greatest electrical discoveries and investigations, carried on in an order and succession which could hardly have been improved if the results had been known from the first, and expressed in the language of a man who devoted much of his attention to the methods of accurately describing scientific operations and their results”.



  • vinaire  On March 6, 2017 at 10:02 AM

    Mathematics has gone into a La La Land by divorcing itself from measurable variables.


  • vinaire  On March 6, 2017 at 11:21 PM

    Only the space occupied by matter is continuous. Space, otherwise, is made up of discrete cycles of frequency of light.

    For example, one may look at space as made up of “points” that lie on top of the crest of a wave. These points are “wavelength” apart.

    In the realm of matter the frequency is so high that the wavelength is infinitesimal, and these “points” approximate a continuous line.

    At lower frequencies of EM phenomena, these points do not form a continuous line, surface or volume.

    Mathematical coordinates system applies only to MRF (Material Reference Frame). It does not apply to SRF (Space Reference Frame).



  • Reese Archer  On March 8, 2017 at 2:08 AM

    i understand that. i never said i believe in a multiverse because obviously the set of infinite universes is still the UNIVERSE but the point is that it is an INFINITE SET.
    secondly, i disagree with your model of the universe in the sentences, “only the space occupied by matter is continuous. Space, otherwise, is made up of discrete cycles of frequency of light”. I either disagree or don’t understand what you mean fully.
    -within the “infinite set universe”/ subjective reality of continuous “things” (of relative parameters) all “things”, where there is any type of distinction at all, are made up of discrete cycles of frequency. The given cycles of frequency are relative to the thing in question but ultimately the cycles could be chosen at infinitely high or low. The continuity of a thing is relative. This is why things can appear to be static and unchanging at times when actually in relation to everything else they are continuous and impermanent.
    -Space can not occupy matter. it’s “displaced” by “matter”. It is the relative gradient between two “things”. It is the line of distinction. Relative lines of distinction could be found in between things at infinitesimally low frequencies and between things at infinitely high frequencies. It’s just a matter of where distinction is found.
    -light is in everything.
    – things arise because different frequencies interact with each other differently, much like harmonies and dissonances in music.


    • vinaire  On March 8, 2017 at 6:04 AM

      Infinite set is another way of saying that there are no absolutes. That applies to a universe. You don’t need a multiverse theory for that. The following is my viewpoint.


      • Reese Archer  On March 10, 2017 at 12:32 AM

        no it is another way of saying there ARE absolutes but within relative parameters.


    • vinaire  On March 8, 2017 at 6:23 AM

      The SRF space is very different from MRF space. I was talking about the continuity of MRF space in which Newton’s mathematics applies.

      SRF space is very different. It is the space that appears at the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum as frequency goes to zero. It is the space that exists within an electromagnetic cycle. The real continuity lies in this space. I still need to work on defining this space properly. In this space distances do not exist. There is only a uniformity. It is sort of a ground state.

      It is the disturbance of SRF space that produces the electromagnetic phenomenon. It is the condensation of electromagnetic phenomenon due to high frequency that produces matter and MRF space that we are all familiar with.

      We carry MRF space with us wherever we go because our thinking is based on material bodies and material instruments that we use.

      But the interstellar space is SRF space, which we can reach only with our minds. We can never reach it in our bodies or spaceships because they will insert the MRF space there.


    • vinaire  On March 8, 2017 at 6:45 AM

      Compared to SRF space the MRF space is subjective. But compared to MRF space the mental space is still more subjective when it is a reflection of MRF space and have become still more condensed with lack of assimilation. That is the state of the “chaotic mind” that I am writing about in the mindfulness series of essays. Space un-condenses as it is better assimilated and discerned. This is the rationale underlying the mindfulness exercises that I have presented.

      SRF space is continuous in a more fundamental sense than the MRF space whose continuity depends on the collapse of very high frequencies. Things are formed by gradients of frequencies. There is a very sudden gradient of frequency at the surface of any particle, such as, the electrons and the nucleons. There is a more uniform gradient of frequencies within the particle.

      The permanence or impermanace of things come from how well such gradients of frequencies are maintained at the nuclear level or at more macro-levels.


    • vinaire  On March 8, 2017 at 6:56 AM

      MRF space is condensed SRF space. Mental space is condensed MRF space. Therefore, subjectivity increases with condensation of space. But the property of mental space is that it may be un-condensed and made increasingly objective to comprehend not only the MRF space but also the SRF space.

      Distinction between two things come from the gradients of condensation existing between them. That is how a surface may be defined. At the nuclear level, the distinction comes from the gradient of electromagnetic frequencies.


  • Reese Archer  On March 8, 2017 at 2:10 AM

    the point i made about the infinite set is important because it means it is mathematically possible for a subjective universe to exist. it may seem like la la land but it might actually be the way things are outside of our illusory perceptions, too.


    • vinaire  On March 8, 2017 at 6:59 AM

      As I said, subjectivity increases with condensation from SRF space to MRF space to the mental space that has become unassimilated.


  • vinaire  On March 8, 2017 at 9:33 AM

    When I am studying Maxwell, I am actually studying SRF Space.


  • Reese Archer  On March 10, 2017 at 12:39 AM

    you say condensed srf, i say degrees of integration. bt i dont agree that subjectivity can be increased or decreased.


    • vinaire  On March 10, 2017 at 3:26 AM

      Looks like we are talking about two different things.


  • Reese Archer  On March 10, 2017 at 11:39 AM

    the infinte set seems contradictory to you because you arent taking into account the subjective aspect of the universe. absolutes exist within relative parameters but relative parameters are the basis of subjectivity. a person’s belief can be true given their scope of understanding and their perspective, but take away the given paradigm of that person and a belief becomes uncertain. opinions and facts are negligibly different. cuz they both exist within one’s relative perspective. (“one” doesn’t mean human but rather, any “thing”). take away distinction, or “thingness” and you have no information whatsoever, no belief and complete uncertainty.


    • vinaire  On March 10, 2017 at 12:09 PM

      The whole existence has to be consistent to be logical. It has to be harmonious to be consistent. And it has to be continuous to be harmonious.

      The basis of this universe is continuity, harmony and consistency. Any discontinuity, disharmony and inconsistency is an anomaly to be resolved.

      Absolute and relative form a dichotomy. This dichotomy provides the two ends of a RELATIVITY SCALE. So there are degrees of relativity, which you are calling relative absolutes implying that they are not connected. This goes against the logical structure of the universe.


      • Reese Archer  On March 11, 2017 at 3:11 PM

        a crest and a trough of wave is a dichotomy then according to your logic.


        • vinaire  On March 11, 2017 at 4:18 PM

          Yes, and there is a continuity between them.


        • Reese Archer  On March 12, 2017 at 12:52 AM

          and there is continuity between relative and absolute


        • vinaire  On March 12, 2017 at 4:32 AM

          Yes, because you can treat this dichotomy as the two open ends of a scale. In one direction of this scale the reality becomes increaingly absolute. In the other direction it becomes increasingly relative.


  • vinaire  On March 12, 2017 at 4:37 AM

    The Western philosophy considers the universe to be fundamentally discrete. The Eastern philosophy takes the opposite view. It considers the universe to be fundamentally continuous.

    For this universe to be logical it must be consistent. For this universe to be consistent it must be harmonious. And for this universe to be harmonious it must be continuous.

    The basis of this universe is continuity, harmony and consistency. Any discontinuity, disharmony and inconsistency is an anomaly to be resolved.

    I would therefore go with the Eastern view. If the universe is continuous then there are no separate and absolute physical and spiritual universes. Neither are there absolute Gods; nor are there absolute individuals, selfs and souls.

    The “deep state” is the flawed belief that we all are separate and absolute individuals.

    We are all connected at a fundamental level.


    • Reese Archer  On March 12, 2017 at 1:14 PM

      we are absolutely discrete in relative contexts. and there is continuity between relative and absolute given the mathematical proof shown by the banuch-tarski paradox.
      now for a semi separate issue, dimensionality is an emergent property corresponding with relativity. I don’t think the universe needs to be described with more than 3 dimensions. i think more than 3 is inaccurate. but less than 2 is probably impossible. i think describing the universe within a 2 to 3 dimensional framework is correct.


      • vinaire  On March 12, 2017 at 10:02 PM

        The concept of fixed points to describe space is inherently flawed.


        • Reese Archer  On March 14, 2017 at 10:53 PM

          yes. and so are all beliefs. that’s why we must use selective open mindedness when contemplating on life
          use ideas as tools buut never conclude anything with certainty


        • vinaire  On March 15, 2017 at 4:53 AM

          This is what I wrote in 2014.

          The Quest for Certainty


      • vinaire  On March 13, 2017 at 6:00 AM

        In my view, a whole lot of space may be reduced to a point, or a point may be expanded into an infinite region of space. It is just a matter of scale. This may explain the banach-tarski paradox. This may also explain relative discreteness.

        In my view, each property has its own dimension if you can explain it in terms of a scale. Thus, Good-evil forms a complex and abstract dimension. So, as new properties emerge, there are emergent dimensions.

        The idea of relativity is dependent on the concept of a continuous scale, which exists between any dichotomy. All different properties can be plotted on their scales. As these properties relate to each other, so do their scales.

        As the case is with space, all these scales may shrink to points or expand to cover infinite regions. So we can look at this universe as a multidimensional matrix of scales, which is basically continuous, but apparently discrete, and which is extremely complex having a fractal form.

        This form of universe is not easy to conceive.



%d bloggers like this: