2nd Jan, 2023

Institute of Physics of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine

Discussion

Started 22nd Jan, 2022

1) Can the existence of an aether be compatible with local Lorentz invariance?

2) Can classical rigid bodies in translation be studied in this framework?

By changing the synchronization condition of the clocks of inertial frames, the answer to 1) and 2) seems to be affirmative. This synchronization clearly violates global Lorentz symmetry but it preserves Lorenzt symmetry in the vecinity of each point of flat spacetime.

Christian Corda showed in 2019 that this effect of clock synchronization is a necessary condition to explain the Mössbauer rotor experiment (Honorable Mention at the Gravity Research Foundation 2018). In fact, it can be easily shown that it is a necessary condition to apply the Lorentz transformation to any experiment involving high velocity particles traveling along two distant points (including the linear Sagnac effect) .

---------------

We may consider the time of a clock placed at an arbitrary coordinate x to be t and the time of a clock placed at an arbitrary coordinate x_{P} to be t_{P}. Let the offset (t – t_{P}) between the two clocks be:

1) (t – t_{P}) = v (x - x_{P})/c^{2}

where (t-t_{P}) is the so-called Sagnac correction. If we call g to the Lorentz factor for v and we insert 1) into the time-like component of the Lorentz transformation T = g (t - vx/c^{2}) we get:

2) T = g (t_{P} - vx_{P}/c^{2})

On the other hand, if we assume that the origins coincide x = X = 0 at time t_{P} = 0 we may write down the space-like component of the Lorentz transformation as:

3) X = g(x - vt_{P})

Assuming that both clocks are placed at the same point x = x_{P , }inserting x =x_{P} , X = X_{P ,} T = T_{P }into 2)3) yields:

4) X_{P} = g (x_{P} - vt_{P})

5) T_{P} = g (t_{P} - vx_{P}/c^{2})

which is the local Lorentz transformation for an event happening at point P. On the other hand , if the distance between x and x_{P} is different from 0 and x_{P} is placed at the origin of coordinates, we may insert x_{P} = 0 into 2)3) to get:

6) X = g (x - vt_{P})

7) T = g t_{P}

which is a change of coordinates that it:

- Is compatible with GPS simultaneity.

- Is compatible with the Sagnac effect. This effect can be explained in a very straightfordward manner without the need of using GR or the Langevin coordinates.

- Is compatible with the existence of relativistic extended rigid bodies in translation using the classical definition of rigidity instead of the Born´s definition.

- Can be applied to solve the 2 problems of the preprint below.

- Is compatible with all experimenat corroborations of SR: aberration of light, Ives -Stilwell experiment, Hafele-Keating experiment, ...

Thus, we may conclude that, considering the synchronization condition 1):

a) We get Lorentz invariance at each point of flat space-time (eqs. 4-5) when we use a unique single clock.

b) The Lorentz invariance is broken out when we use two clocks to measure time intervals for long displacements (eqs. 6-7).

c) We need to consider the frame with respect to which we must define the velocity v of the synchronization condition (eq 1). This frame has v = 0 and it plays the role of an absolute preferred frame.

a)b)c) suggest that the Thomas precession is a local effect that cannot manifest for long displacements.

More information in:

“…*Underlying this result is the behavior of the clocks that are used for the light-speed measurement. Their local-frame velocities cause them to lose their preferred-frame synchronization. If you don’t correct for that de-synchronization then the clocks will always imply a local light speed of c*….”

- that is essentially correct, indeed if in an absolute, i.e. that is at rest in the 3D space of the Matter’s absolute spacetime [more see the SS post on page 5], frame two clocks are synchronized, then, if one clock is accelerated by some real force up to a speed *V* in the frame, then the clock will tick slower in Lorentz factor, and so, of course, the clocks become to be de-synchronized.

Nonetheless at the acceleration not only the de-synchronization above happens, if not only clocks, but a specific system of synchronized mutually [in the system] clocks and scaled [space] rules “inertial reference frame” is accelerated, so all clocks and rules in the system are in the system at rest,

- besides that measurement in the moving frame of the speed of light will result in that in all direction the measured speed of light is equal to *c*,

- but also measured values of energy, momentums, etc. – all other physical parameters of some bodies – will, though differ from the values that are measured in the absolute frame – nonetheless the using the results in the moving frame quite correctly describes what happens with the bodies, etc., at their existence and interactions. The Galileo-Poincare relativity principle do is very mighty principle.

So, say that

“…. *If you do correct for it, they will reveal the anisotropic light speed predicted by aether theory*.…..”

- is really a questionable scientifically wording. At any “correction” of really uniquely correct “Lorentz synchronization”, say in practice by using “Einstein synchronization”, i.e. if using some other synchronization happens, the synchronized by such a way clocks will show some really physically senseless showings,

- including “anisotropic light speed”, which by no means can be predicted by really correct aether theory - say, in framework of the SS&VT physical model, see the SS post above in the thread.

Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_a_debate_about_twins_paradox_so_bad#view=63a752e5412c61ddf70df2cd/18is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

**Get help with your research**

Join ResearchGate to ask questions, get input, and advance your work.

Eather as a substance is ruled out. However vaccum is not empty and there is a quantum field (please read more on QFT). SRT Doesnt need Eather in its conventional sense but there is electromagnetic propogation and this happens through a field

The explanation for this problem was already explained in a paper in my profile.

It was demonstrated that the relativity theories are wrong and that a media exists surrounding all masses. The relativity theory works perfectly well but, only in the local reference frame, which in our case is the Earth surface. This is why the experimental results (on the Earth's surface) agree with the theory.

JES

The usual is that aether not needed in SRT, however I personally never found this argument totally convincing.

One could argue that c is the caracteristic light speed determined by a static aether, as soon as light leaves the source, independent of source speed. Thus any reason for vector like addition of velocities is squashed from the start.(which of course is not exactly vector like in SRT either)

1 Recommendation

Thank you very much for your answers.

It seems that synchronizing the clocks of inertial frames with an offset of vx/c2 allows to include the analysis of extended bodies and the Sagnac effect into the framework of SRT. I think that this synchronization is the only solution for the problem (rvm.pdf) that I have uploaded. Calculations are really easy.

There is not much information on this in the literature. If you know any, please let me know. The use of such synchronization condition provokes absolute simultaneity that is the kind of simultaneity used by GPS systems. On the other hand, it preserves the local covariance of the Lorentz group. I have included a short discussion on this covariance in:

“*Compatibility between Special Relativity and the existence of an aether*”

- Special Relativity fundamentally is incompatible with existence of an aether, because of any aether can exist only being fixed in the absolute Matter’s spacetime, whereas the SR principally is based on the postulates that there is no absolute spacetime,, and that so all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.

Only provided that these postulates are true, the other SR’s postulates are legitimate: the postulate of the fundamental constancy of the speed of light, where some extremely mighty “speed of light”, to be constant, forces moving clocks to thick slower and to contract moving bodies’ lengths – in the 1905 year SR version,

- and completely ad hoc postulates in the 1908 year version, which is standard official physics theory now, where the “fundamental relativistic properties of the space/time/spacetime” and fundamental relativistic effects, i.e. that in moving frames completely really “space is contracted” , “time is dilated”, etc., comparing with the *stationary* [*italic* in 1905 year paper] frame, are postulated.

However from the incompability above by no means it follows that the aether really doesn’t exist. Moreover, from the postulates above directly, rigorously, and unambiguously any number of really senseless consequences follow, the simplest and known is the Dingle objection to the SR,

- and from this fact completely rigorously by the completely rigorous “proof by contradiction” it follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute; and so an existence of some aether is possible .

As that was postulated really in the Lorentz-Poincaré 1904-1905 theory, where the Lorentz transformations act in absolute Euclidian 4D spacetime – and in aether. Though Poincaré asserted that the absolute motion in the 3D space, because of extremely mighty the relativity principle, is fundamentally non-observable.

Really Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (*cτ,X,Y,Z,ct*), where the cancelled in the SR ether – the [5]4D dense lattice of [5]4D fundamental logical elements [FLE] is placed, and practically everything in Matter is determined by the logical construction and properties of FLEs. Why and how that is so – see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , where, including, the physical sense of the Lorentz transformations is explained, and physical sense of many other physical phenomena/notions as well.

Including the absolute motion in the space really is observable and, say, measurement of the absolute velocity, in this case of a pair of clocks, is possible yet now, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709

Cheers

I include this interesting reference:

It provides insight on why changing the synchronization of clocks "leave the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime unchanged".

"Once correctly and explicitly phrased, the principles of SRT allow for a wide range of ‘theories’ that differ from the standard SRT only for the difference in the chosen synchronization procedures, but are wholly equivalent to SRT in predicting empirical facts".

To the link Synchronization Gauges and the Principles of Special Relativity in the José Luis Junquera’s post above. In the abstract

- really there exist only a couple of clocks’ synchronization methods in concrete inertial reference frame that make the frame “Lorentzian frame”, i.e. where measurements of time and space intervals, distances, so – speeds, momentums, energies, etc., in a studied systems of material objects are in accordance with the relativity principle and so Lorentz transformations, i.e. when the results of measurements are physically valid:

- the “Einstein synchronization”, i.e. when distant clocks are synchronized by using previously measured distances’ values and the constancy of the speed of light in the frame; and “low transport synchronization”, when a number of clocks are synchronized in one space point, and clocks are further transported on distant points in the frame with known speed.

In the methods above the “Einstein synchronization” is utmost simple and precise; so, say, slow transport is used usually only if this method cannot be applied, say, at synchronization of clocks in different rooms of some building. Correspondingly that

- is rather strange claim. All other really valid synchronizations are some exotic and really unnecessary, methods. And, besides, that cannot be some “arbitrary synchronization procedures”, the procedures must be in complete accordance with the relativity principle, and so by no means differ principally from the standard ones above, and can differ only in that in corresponding measurements the experimental errors could be well larger than in the simple, i.e. where minimum measurements are used, standard methods .

Any other procedures, if aren’t in the accordance above, are non-applicable principally, so and there cannot be so any “wide range of `theories' that differ from the standard SRT only for the difference in the chosen synchronization procedures, but are wholly equivalent to SRT”.

Again, because of that the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle is extremely mighty, the SR, though is fundamentally non-adequate to the reality theory, is completely adequate to the reality in most practical cases,

- while the fundamental non-adequacy above becomes be fundamentally important only on the fundamental physical level; say, in the SR there cannot be antiparticles, whereas antiparticles exist, etc.

These problems are solved in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s completely adequate to the reality informational physical model, the links see the SS post above; to read the paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics , doi: 10.20944/preprints202110.0453.v1, it is useful as well.

Cheers

José Luis Junquera There does seem to be a problem with Special Relativity and a number of paradoxes have been identified.

These paradoxes arise because the factor affecting time dilation and length contraction depend on a relative velocity v. When you start to talk about the ageing of a twin or the mass of a colliding object it is clear that it is necessary to have a reference frame to define the velocity v.

Then when you equate the aether to space itself the problem is solved.

Preprint Space Rest Frame (Dec 2021)

Richard

1 Recommendation

Thanks a lot for your contributions. I appreciate it. From your responses I assume that you don´t believe in using a synchronization gauge to include the translational motion of extended rigid bodies, the Sagnac effect and the existence of a preferred frame (aether) into SR.

I think that an interesting point is that, using units with c = 1, the 4-velocity (dt,dx,0,0)/ds is a 1-tensor that is the same for any offset of clocks of the inertial frame. Then we have that the 4-velocity (dt,dx,0,0)/ds transforms the same for any synchronization, it satisfies the Einstein addition of velocities and consequently it also satisfies the principle of constancy of speed of light. On the other hand, as it behaves like a tensor under Lorentz transformations, the relativity principle holds for it an for all derived 1-tensors like velocity, acceleration and so on.

José Luis Junquera I think the problem is that as soon as you find that you are obliged to introduce a preferred rest frame into SR then the postulates of SR have to be changed. See paper on space rest frame.

Richard

“…*I think that an interesting point is that, using units with c = 1, the 4-velocity (dt,dx,0,0) is a 1-tensor that is the same for any offset of clocks of the inertial frame. Then we have that the 4-velocity (dt,dx,0,0) transforms the same for any synchronization, it satisfies the Einstein addition of velocities*….”

- “4 velocity” is standard 4-vector invariant, which really is constant speed of light in the standard SR, though “the Einstein addition of velocities” doesn’t relate to the 4 velocity, that relates only to the 3D space velocities of bodies;

- and that happens because of, as that Poincaré had shown in “Sur la dynamique del’électron” paper, published June 5, 1905, that Lorentz transformations form the “3D velocities group” in the space of Matter’s absolute 4D Euclidian spacetime; in the paper the “velocities addition” formula isn’t given, seems Poincaré thought that such trivial thing aren’t pertinent in high level mathematicians’ papers. Einstein wasn’t so lazy and gave the formula, and it turned out to be well useful for physicists.

Correspondingly all inertial reference frames are equivalent in the Lorentz-Poincaré theory, and different frames can be completely adequately to the reality traced to each other, including to an absolute [that is at rest in the absolute 3D space] frame, where [in the absolute frame] all parameters of all objects/events/effects/processes have real values.

“…*I think the problem is that as soon as you find that you are obliged to introduce a preferred rest frame into SR then the postulates of SR have to be changed. See paper on space rest frame.….*”

- that isn’t so, see above, “preferred frame”, more correctly “absolute frame” well exists in the Lorentz-Poincaré theory; whereas the SR differs from this theory only in that Lorentz-Poincaré developed the theory in the typical physical way: they found some mathematical equations that are adequate to the reality, without some explanations – why these equation so work; and further - “that works – let it work, when it will not work, it will be corrected”,

- while Einstein and Minkowski “found first principles” – in the 1905 year version that is the extremely mighty speed of light, in Minkowski 1908 version that are real extremely mighty “frame”, “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc.; though really all these first principles above were some illusions of the authors.

. Again, the SR is applicable in most of practical situation in physics, besides some fundamental points in “classical” physics that reveals itself in some exotic, as, say, known and unknown real “SR paradoxes”, e.g., twin paradox and Bell paradox,

- but, again - what is principally important - the SR is fundamentally non-applicable at solutions of really fundamental physical problems, and its applications in such cases are real impediments at the solutions.

Again, the real explanations what is the fast bodies mechanics, including what are Lorentz transformations, when they are completely applicable, and when are non-completely applicable, what the twin and Bell paradoxes, etc., is given only in the SS&VT informational physical model, more see concretely what is the mechanics, etc., in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657

- what are the fundamental impediments of the SR at solutions of fundamental physical problems see in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics, doi: 10.20944/preprints202110.0453.v1

Cheers

Sergey, ¿don’t you agree with this?: applying a Lorentz boost to a 4- velocity one gets the Einstein velocity addition for the 3 space-like components of the 4-velocity.

29th Jan, 2022

Сначала нужно ответить на вопрос: Сколько чертей могут уместиться на кончике иглы?

First you need to answer the question: How many devils can I fit on the tip of a needle?

1 Recommendation

There is a more fundamental problem with SR in that it does not include the expansion of space. If you consider galaxy A at a distance of 8 billion light years in one direction and galaxy B at a distance of 8 billion light years in the opposite direction then the relative velocity of B with reference to A is greater than the speed of light just because of the expansion of space.

In SR relative velocities of greater than c are not allowed.

Richard

“…*Sergey, ¿don’t you agree with this?: applying a Lorentz boost to a 4- velocity one gets the Einstein velocity addition for the 3 space-like components of the 4-velocity*.….”

- José Luis, again – the “addition of velocities” equation was derived by Poincaré for 4D absolute Euclidian spacetime [and further by Einstein for fundamentally non-absolute, but also 4D Euclidian spacetime], and Poincaré used at that just only Lorentz transformations, and not some “a Lorentz boost”. The dimensionless “4 velocity” is derived in Minkowski 4D space, which also was found by Poincaré in 1906, “Sur la dynamique de l’ electron”; Jourmal Rendiconti del circole Matematico di Palermo; submitted 25 of July 1905; printed 1906,

- where Poincaré, besides, found that the Lorentz transformations are derived by condition of the invariance of the quadratic form *s*^{2}=t^{2}-(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2})^{ }[*c*=1 in this case/paper] in a mathematical space, where the dimension/coordinate *“t*” [time] is mathematically imaginary variable. However for Poincaré that was only interesting mathematical fact, he well understood, of course, that the dimension/coordinate “time” in Matter’s spacetime fundamentally cannot be imaginary.

However Minkowski in 1908 postulated that this space is real Matter’s spacetime, and this version of the SR is standard version in official physics till now, in spite of that nobody, and never, observed imaginary time [or imaginary space, in the SR both versions are legitimate and used]

In the standard SR version the first Poincaré “velocity group” was transformed into “Poincaré/Lorentz” set of groups, including, first of all “rotation group”, “Lorentz boost”, etc., where the imaginary mathematically “4 velocity” is invariant, the moving in a stationary frame is rotated on imaginary angle, and so again the Lorentz transformation are derived.

All that for any normal human looks as some strange picture – again, nobody observed imaginary space or time, but, what is even more strange, is in this case that, because of the SR postulate that all/every frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate, so for any normal human it is evident, that, say, if we have two relatively moving frames, than there exist two completely equally legitimate different Matters that are in two different completely equally legitimate spacetimes;

- and so how many differently moving frames can exist, so many different Matters, etc. exist.

Correspondingly the imaginary “4 velocity” is some strange physical thing as well. In the SR it is dimensionless because of is normalized on the speed of light value *c*, but if we write a more natural, i.e. dimensional, velocity, that would be just the speed of light – which would be the SR invariant as well, whereas in this 4 velocity the **space components** have arbitrary values, including arbitrarily larger than *c*, i.e. have rather indirect relation to real bodies’ real space velocities.

So, say, for me there would not be surprised that application of “a Lorentz boost to a 4- velocity one gets the Einstein velocity addition”, however this application would be really rather strange mental construction; which, because of the above, would be non-interesting for any normal human. In physics there exist many other, and really interesting, problems.

First of all in this case that is introducing in physics of the fact that Matter’s spacetime isn’t a “classical” mathematical Euclidian space, it is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, “physical” non-trivial specific **[5]4D** spacetime with metrics (*cτ,X,Y,Z,ct*); more see the conclusion in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics, doi: 10.20944/preprints202110.0453.v1

Cheers

Aether theory and special relativity are impossible to tolerate each other while special relativity being mathematically dead wrong. So, "compatibility between Special Relativity and aether" cannot be a valid topic.

Cameron Rebigsol You might be interested in a modification of Special Relativity which uses slightly different SR postulates to achieve compatibility with the idea of an aether:

Preprint Space Rest Frame (Dec 2021)

Richard

When Newton declared his three laws in mechanics, he needed no postulate. "Postulate" fundamentally means something not existing, or at least, not certain. So, any physical theory needing postulate to stand up must first

put its validity in question.

1 Recommendation

Cameron Rebigsol I agree with your point. I think it would be better to refer to initial assumptions to make clear that the theory is developed based on these assumptions and if the assumptions turn out to be false, then the theory fails.

As an example of this we should state the initial assumptions of the Big Bang theory as:

1. The assumption that all matter formed in the early universe

2. The cosmological principle

3. The assumption that the CMB radiation was caused by a plasma passing through a state of "recombination"

In the case of SR the initial assumptions are:

- The laws of physics are invariant (that is, identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration).
- The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or observer.

The proposal is to replace these initial assumptions with:

- There is a unique space rest frame K0 in the universe. When a source emits light it travels at speed c in the frame K0.
- Objects travelling with velocity v relative to K0 experience length contraction a time dilation by the factor √( 1 - v2 / c2).

By specifying a space rest frame we are defining the reference frame for the aether.

If after specifying the initial assumptions the theory goes on to explain everything without paradox or contradiction then we start to have confidence in the theory but we can never prove it to be true. We can only prove a theory to be false.

Richard

Richard Lewis I fundamentally agree with you. However, if we allow an assumption for a certain universal fluid called Aether to exist and permeate every space we can find, then the Aether itself offers us a no better inertial frame with acceleration forever equal to zero everywhere

Cameron Rebigsol I think of space itself as the aether. It is not as if the aether is permeating space but rather that spacetime itself is the medium for the propagation of light, electromagnetic waves and the medium to support gravity.

I think the story goes something like this: James Clerk Maxwell rejected the idea of action at a distance as the explanation for electromagnetic phenomena and instead proposed that the medium (aether) provided the means of delivery of the electromagnetic forces. He also took the view that the same medium was responsible for delivering the gravitational force but he was unable to take this further.

When Albert Einstein developed General Relativity he showed how the state of the medium (i.e. spacetime curvature) delivered the gravitational force. In his paper to the university of Leiden in 1920 he said in his closing remarks:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristics of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

In this last sentence Einstein seems to be saying that there is an ether but it is not a stationary ether. In other words, he is taking the null result of the Michelson-Moreley experiment to mean that the speed of light is the same in every uniformly moving frame of reference and that there is no preferred frame of reference for an ether. We have lost something here when Special Relativity is introduced because we have lost the idea of light travelling through a stationary medium.

Prior to the work by Albert Einstein there was a proposal by George Francis Fitzgerald (in 1889) that the null result of the Michelson-Moreley experiment could be explained by assuming that the length of objects contracts when they are moving relative to the stationary luminiferous aether. This was subsequently called Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. This idea of length contraction was dismissed as "ad hoc" because no-one could see why lengths should contract in this way.

It is now clear to me that Fitzgerald was right and it just lacked the explanation for the cause of the length contraction. The length contraction occurs because objects are made up of neutrons, protons and electrons and these fundamental particles are themselves looped waves in spacetime which undergo length contraction when moving at velocity v relative to the space rest frame K0.

We are comfortable with the idea that gravity occurs because mass curves spacetime so that the medium of space is put into a particular state which then affects other objects in spacetime. So we can see how the medium of space delivers the gravitational force and we just have to work out how the medium of space delivers the electromagnetic forces.

Here we draw on the notion of charge as defined in the spacetime wave theory so that the presence of an electric charge has the effect of locally compressing (or expanding) space:

Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)

So you can see that the electromagnetic forces are delivered by the same medium (space). To put simply, spacetime curvature delivers gravity, space curvature delivers electromagnetism.

Richard

1 Recommendation

Space is space, time is time. They are two physical existence that are absolutely independent to each other, although they are so closely "permeate" each other just like blood and muscle.

Spacetime as a "physical dimension" is manmade; it is not the nature's property. The confused spacetime concept leads to the general relativity, which claims itself being more accurate than Newtonian mechanics. If it is so correct, can anyone use this theory to produce one general equation that is able to describe all the moving orbits, or loci, close and open, of the heavenly objects in the sky? Newtonian mechanics can! Why? Because Newtonian mechanics respects space and time as two physically separate dimensions and being independent to each other.

("All orbits" above only limit to two body movement)

Cameron Rebigsol I understand your world view and Sir Isaac Newton would have agreed with you. Newton explained gravity and made the connection between the gravity on Earth (e.g. the falling apple) and the motion of the moon. He worked out that it would all be explained by an inverse square law of distance. Even Newton was a bit puzzled about how this "action at a distance" worked.

James Clerk Maxwell pointed out that this "action at a distance" was not a good explanation and felt that there had to be some mechanism through the medium to produce electromagnetism and gravity.

I agree with the viewpoint of Maxwell and I do take as my starting assumption that General Relativity is completely correct as there is sufficient evidence for this. Then the question of "action at a distance" is resolved because it is the state of the medium (i.e. spacetime) which is the underlying cause of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces.

Richard

2 Recommendations

“…*Prior to the work by Albert Einstein there was a proposal by George Francis Fitzgerald (in 1889) that the null result of the Michelson-Moreley experiment could be explained by assuming that the length of objects contracts when they are moving relative to the stationary luminiferous aether. This was subsequently called Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. This idea of length contraction was dismissed as "ad hoc" because no-one could see why lengths should contract in this way.*….”

- the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was “explained” in 1904 in the Lorentz theory – in typical physical way, Lorentz found the transformations between inertial reference frames, which fit to experimental data, including Michelson-Morley experiment, “relativity of simultaneity”, etc.;

- at that the letters “*x,y,z,t*” in Lorentz transformations related to some transcendent “local space” and “local time”, though Lorentz and Poincaré frankly said that these phenomena are some unknown, but – fit, and so the theory works, so let it work. Correspondingly contraction of lengths of moving bodies, including M&M interferometer’s arms, is called “Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction”.

In 1908 Minkowski “explained” the contraction postulating that the letters “*x,y,z,t*” in the transformations relate to all points in Matter’s spacetime, and so the real bodies lengths contraction is caused by “space contraction” [slowing down moving clocks’ tick rates is caused by “time dilation”, etc.], what really was/is fundamentally transcendent,

- however since for every of the authors in of these versions of fast bodies mechanics, and for most people in mainstream philosophy and official physics till now, the fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” were, and are, fundamentally transcendent, this Minkowski illusion is now the standard official physics theory, despite of that is fundamentally wrong.

The rigorous scientific definitions of the phenomena above – and of all other really fundamental phenomena – can be, and are, given only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, and in informational physical model, which is based on the conception, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/3

- the Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (*cτ,X,Y,Z,ct*), which fundamentally cannot be “contracted/dilated/curved”, and fundamentally cannot “contract/dilate” anything in Matter; the letters in Lorentz transformations relate only to points of rigid bodies that are in the spacetime – as that is in Galileo transformations, etc., more see the 2-nd link.

So, say that

“…*Space is space, time is time. They are two physical existence that are absolutely independent to each other*…”

- is correct, though, again, that can be rigorously proven only in the conception/model above, in other cases that is a bare declaration; however that

“…. *although they are so closely "permeate" each other just like blood and muscle*. ….”

- is fundamentally wrong, the absolutely fundamental phenomena Space and Time, and their actualizations in Matter’s spacetime as [4]3D space and time, are fundamentally different, and so cannot "permeate" by any way each other; as, say, any observable 3D space dimensions evidently don’t "permeate" each other.

More see the SS posts above

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko Hi Sergey. I sense we are in agreement that the fundamental conception in the currently accepted version of Special Relativity is wrong.

I was not sure of your meaning when using the term fundamentally transcendent.

I had a look at the paper on “The Information as Absolute “ and this seems to be a valid basis for a logically constructed world view.

The problem that I have with this approach is that I see space and time as real physical entities whereas I see information as something describing real physical entities without in itself having a real physical existence This is just my world view of things which is why I think Spacetime is the fundamental thing and the Einstein equations of GR without the cosmological constant are the Theory of Everything equations.

Richard

>>there is sufficient evidence for this

The best evidence to prove general relativity's validity is its incapability to lead to a mathematical equation that can describe the orbit movement of a two body system under only the gravitational influence

>>"action over a distance"

With an intrinsic pressure of 10^12 newton/cm^2, who should expect that a variation of physical state at point A will not immediately (nearly) cause a change of physical state of point B, which is a distance away from point A?

Vitor Matheus Izoldi Nogueira I took a look at your paper linked above and it is an excellent paper. It does seem surprising that Special Relativity has survived intact for so long.

[Incidentally I still think that General Relativity is completely correct.]

I think I have solved all the problems and paradoxes that you have identified by insisting that the length contraction and time dilation are dependent on the velocity v relative to a unique frame of reference.

Preprint Space Rest Frame (Dec 2021)

I have even specified an experiment to prove this to be the case.

Richard

Hi Richard

“…*Hi Sergey. I sense we are in agreement that the fundamental conception in the currently accepted version of Special Relativity is wrong*….”

- well, however despite that the SR is based on fantastic postulates, but since it is based also on indeed extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, in everyday physical practice that isn’t essential, and it is well applicable. The wrong postulates become to be essential, when physics addresses to really fundamental problems, corresponding link is the 2-nd link in the SS post above

“……*I was not sure of your meaning when using the term fundamentally transcendent*…”

- the meaning is rather standard, such question was in other thread, and the answer was written in this thread, so see SS post to Alain Haraux, 2 days ago now in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_that_general_relativity_needs_modifications_or_it_is_a_perfect_theory

“….*I had a look at the paper on “The Information as Absolute “ and this seems to be a valid basis for a logically constructed world view*.……”

- well, though here some correction should be made - “The Information as Absolute “ is unique really valid basis for a logically constructed world view”.

Including that

“…*The problem that I have with this approach is that I see space and time as real physical entities …*”

- there is no problem in that space and time as real physical entities, that is so, however it is necessary to understand at that, that the phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” are absolutely fundamental, that are elements of the “Logos” set, whereas the elements of the “Logos” set are absolutely fundamental and general Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc., which “make something to be some information”, and these points more clearly are written in first pages of the more fresh paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics

- which tells how more 30 fundamental physical problems are either solved or essentially clarified in the informational physical model, which is based on the “The Information as Absolute” conception.

Again, in the conception it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, so that

- is incorrect, the real physical existence is existence of only some informational patterns/systems that compose the informational system “Matter”, which exchange by some informational patterns, whereas in that

- the Matter’s the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (*cτ,X,Y,Z,ct*), and indeed is fundamental thing, where the “Logos” set elements “Space” and “Time” are actualized in this concrete informational system. However “Space” and “Time” are, first of all, only some possibilities for any informational pattern could exist [Space] and to change [Time], i.e. the spacetime is nothing else/more than some [logical] “empty container”, where Matter – and all material objects – are placed, exist, and always constantly change their states;

whereas the GR is based on fundamentally wrong postulates that spacetime “materially” interacts with “mass”, i.e. with material objects; and so, say, in the GR the “curved spacetime” really forces, using some mystic forces/ways, Earth to rotate around Sun; what is fundamentally impossible.

Cheers

1 Recommendation

Sergey Shevchenko Hi Sergei. I can see how you have built up your world view starting from “Information” as the fundamental thing whereas I have built up a world view starting from “Spacetime“ as the fundamental thing.

You might be interested in my viewpoint on how mass curves Spacetime:

Richard

Hi Richard,

“…*Hi Sergei. I can see how you have built up your world view starting from “Information” as the fundamental thing*…”

- well, however that

- so looks as rather questionable wording. In the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception, it is rigorously shown that the really absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” are only “Logos” set elements, i.e. are absolutely necessary for any informational pattern/system, including informational system “Matter” would exist, and only simultaneously with all other “Logos” elements “make something to be an information”,

- but “Logos” elements by no means determine the content of any concrete informational pattern/system. Space and Time are, first of all, only Possibilities for ant information could exist – “Space”, and, if a pattern/system is dynamical, could change – “Time” I.e. concrete Space and Time actualizations for/in concrete pattern/system are nothing else than logical possibilities for the pattern/system to exist somewhere - “empty container”, where the pattern/system can be placed,

- at that the concrete number of space dimensions is determined by number of independent degrees of freedom at changing of state of the pattern/system. So the dimensions are fundamentally infinite, i.e. in the same spacetime infinite “number” of copies of a pattern/system on infinite distances can be placed [though the time dimension is unique in whole “Information” Set for all infinite “number” of the Set’s dynamical elements].

In this sense, though Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,*Y,Z,ct)*, which “automatically” appeared at creation of the first FLE that have [5]4D independent degreases of freedom at “FLE flips”, is, of course, fundamental thing by definition, however it fundamentally by no means can affect any material object, and any material object can affect neither space, nor time, nor spacetime.

More concretely see in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657

Cheers

Aloha Richard and all,

I am in full agreement with the idea that curved space-time in GR is impossible on the objective fundamental principle that an observer (and by consequence every observer on earth) is not an inertial reference frame, let alone a universal one. I also concur that time cannot be bent as it is a mental conception and quantifiable only by the infinitely cyclical motions of the heavens. It is immaterial; tangible only psychologically. 'Space has no properties and thus cannot curve' -Nikola Tesla Time moves mountains and turns grasslands into forests; it cannot be touched.

“…*I also concur that time cannot be bent as it is a mental conception and quantifiable only by the infinitely cyclical motions of the heavens. It is immaterial; tangible only psychologically…*”

- that is fundamentally incorrect, what is “Time” – and so observed by humans “time” – see the SS post above and links in the post.

- that space fundamentally cannot curve – that is correct, however, since for Nikola Tesla the fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and so “Matter’s space” were transcendent/uncertain/irrational, this his claim is nothing else than some ad hoc – though quite natural for a normal human, who understands that the claim that “space is curved” is quite questionable also ad hoc claim, which, including in the GR, has no any physical grounds, and so the GR has no any explanations – how the space can be “curved”, etc.,

- but really space has its absolutely fundamental property – it is absolutely fundamentally necessary for any informational pattern/system, including Matter, could exist. Nothing can exist outside its “space”.

And that

- is fundamentally incorrect, Time absolutely fundamentally makes nothing with anything, it is only common for all elements of the “Information” Set, including for Matter, and, say, for humans, “space for changing states of changing patterns/systems”, though, again, it differs from Space principally in that every concrete dynamical the Set’s element exists in its concrete space,

- say, when Matter exists in the (3+1) D space of its fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (*cτ,X,Y,Z,ct*) [i.e. has metrics (*cτ,X,Y,Z*)], but fundamentally non-material humans’ consciousnesses exist in the “consciousness space”, where number and nomenclature of the space dimensions are arbitrary, though this space contains also Matter’s dimensions.

But both, Matter and any consciousness have the only one, common, and universal for all dynamical elements in the Set, time dimension – “*ct*” in the metrics above.

Cheers

9th Feb, 2022

I have found several older papers on this topic to be valuable, three of them in particular: Mansouri and Sexl’s 1977 paper ( ), Selleri’s 1995 paper (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6074794), and Selleri’s shorter 1997 version (http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_605.pdf). Those papers seem to pretty clearly answer the first discussion question in the affirmative: yes, you can have an aether and special relativity. You don’t get all of special relativity in all frames though: you only get all of it in the preferred frame. You do seem to get Maxwell’s equations in all frames, and most of special relativity works most of the time in most frames. But the preferred frame rules, so do any calculations using it.

Accordingly, the answer to the second question, about rigid bodies, should also be “yes” (in the preferred frame), provided there are no gravitational fields complicating things.

Once you choose a preferred frame all of the puzzling aspects of special relativity go away: you know which meter stick is really longer, which twin is really aging faster, and which event came first and which came second.

A comment for Richard Lewis : You said you don’t agree with special relativity theory, but you think that general relativity is correct. I’m not sure those positions are compatible. Remember that GRT’s metric equations are just coordinate transformations of the Minkowski metric.

A general comment: I think that there is an aether, and that it is simply the combined gravitational fields of all of the masses that affect a given point. I say this because we know that gravitational fields slow light waves. There is an incredible amount of mass within the cosmological horizon of any given point, and by definition the mean velocity of that mass is zero in the cosmic frame. So the speed of light is basically determined with respect to the cosmic frame. That tells me that the speed of light is on average isotropic in the cosmic frame- and only in the cosmic frame. The local speed of light is a little bit slower than average, and can be a little bit anisotropic, near to a mass- hence Shapiro delays and gravitational lenses.

Dear Ronald Ian Miller,

I suggest you take a look at my paper "Demonstration that the special relativity theory is wrong" in my profile or a more complete presentation at "https://daontheory.com".

JES

Ronald Ian Miller, thank you very much for your contribution. I think there are only 3 approaches to solve the 2 problems I have posed (see preprint):

1) Using the Tangherlini - Selleri equations.

2) Using the Lorentz equations and a re-synchronization of clocks with a change of coordinates.

3) Using the Lorentz equations and a re- synchronization of clocks without any change of coordinates and considering a re-parametrization of the time-like coordinate (see preprint).

You can find quite information in the literature on 1)2) but I think it is difficult to find information on 3). The main difference between 2) and 3) is that 2) considers the offset of clocks to be dependent on the system of coordinates and 3) doesn´t.

On the other hand, as you say, using Riemann normal coordinates we get that locally, at any point of curved space-time, we have a Minkowski metric.

“…*I have found several older papers on this topic to be valuable, three of them in particular: Mansouri and Sexl’s 1977 paper (*

- really there exist only two really adequate to the reality transformations at description and analysis of object/event/effects/processes in Matter in different inertial reference frames – the Lorentz transformations and, if speeds of the objects in a frame are essentially small, the Galileo transformations, which both were derived from the indeed really extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle. All other “transformations”, including in the quote above, are non-adequate to the reality, so aren’t applicable really in physical practice, and are quite unnecessary, since the correct transformations exist.

Correspondingly, as that Poincaré showed in 1905, the Lorentz transformations form the “velocity group”, and so all/every inertial reference frames are indeed in practically in all cases in everyday physical practice are really equivalent and legitimate; and all are at that traceable to absolute/ “preferred” frames that are at 3D space rest in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (*cτ,X,Y,Z,ct*), where the ultimate Matter’s base - the Matter’s ether – practically for sure the [5]4D dense lattice of the [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE] is placed; and everything what exist and interact in Matter is/are some disturbances in the lattice.

Correspondingly in the 1904 Lorentz-Poincaré theory the Lorentz transformations were applied for the absolute Matter’s Euclidian 4D spacetime, where some “luminiferous ether” was placed, what was cancelled in the 1905 and 1908 the SR versions for really completely unphysical reasons - that was necessary to postulate, as some ultimately fundamental and mighty thing, the physical fact that in relatively moving frames the really simply measured by humans speed of light is constant, and in 1908 – standard SR theory in official physics now – to postulate really fantastic transcendent “fundamental properties and effect of the space/time/spacetime” – “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc.

What was/are in official physics till now, really only some illusions of the authors – and now of official physicists, since for which – and all other authors in mainstream philosophy and sciences – the fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter”, “Space”, and “Time” were fundamentally transcendent.

Again, practically all fundamental phenomena notions, including above, can be, and are scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, and concretely what happens in Matter, including what really are the Lorentz transformations, is explained scientifically in the informational physical model, which is based on the conception; more see SS posts above and the links in the posts.

To read SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_Einsteins_Special_Relativity_which_clock_is_the_faster-moving_one it is useful as well, the thread isn’t spammed.

Cheers

Dear José Luis Junquera

Here is the answer to your question:

"Some scientists are aware of the interchangeability of the concepts of length contraction and time dilation and the effects of aberration and Doppler shift (notably Oleg D. Jefimenko), but they do not see it as an explanation of the MM-experiment but as an alternative way to set up the theory of special relativity. He wrote (Jefimenko 1995):

He then stated that retardation is implicit in special relativity and derived the Lorentz-Einstein transformations from classical electromagnetic theory."

This is an excerpt from the (peer reviewed and published) article

It explains why the MM interferometer is incapable of detecting the Earth's velocity in the CMB-frame, which of course is the aether frame in flat spacetime.

Best regards

Jouko A. Rautio

Jouko A. Rautio I think there is a subtle difference between the CMB rest frame and the space rest frame which is the expanding frame of reference of the stationary aether.

If you take the velocity of the Milky Way galaxy as 552km/sec relative to the CMB radiation and then project in the opposite direction using Hubble you get to a point at a distance of 26 million light years where you would expect the CMB radiation to be the same from all directions.(CMB rest point).

If you were to observe the Milky Way galaxy from this CMB rest point you would see it moving away at 552km/sec due to the expansion of space.

The hypothesis is that length contraction and time dilation depend on the velocity v relative to the space rest frame K0. So my expectation would be that the Milky Way galaxy is moving at less than 100km/sec relative to K0 and this is due to gravitational acceleration.

Preprint Space Rest Frame (Dec 2021)

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

The only reference frame that makes sense is the one in which the CMBR is isotropic. Only in this frame and far from celestial objects the speed of electromagnetic radiation is *c*. In this frame the calculations based on special relativity can be replaced with retarded solutions of Maxwell's equations, and these are the ones expressing physical reality.

I noticed that you have a project in which "The objective is to find a unified description of physical properties which applies at the small (atomic) scale and at the large (cosmological) scale. The starting point is the General Theory of Relativity."

I have a similar goal, but it has nothing to do with Einstein's theories. As to your starting point, I suggest that you read the following:

It might make you reconsider your starting point.

Best regards

Jouko A. Rautio

Dear friends of quantum physics, gravity, cosmology and elementary particles,

In fact, I modeled the vacuum without an aether, and in precise accordance with observation, without executing any fit, of course.

Here are essential LINKs, especially those marked by ***:

*** FEBRUARY 2022

FEBRUARY 2022

OCTOBER 2021

*** AUGUST 2021

APRIL 2021

*** MARCH 2021

JULY 2019

2017

Thereby I use no fit parameter and I obtain precise accordance with observation.

I am very interested in your comments.

There is a difference between Lorentz transformations and scale transformations.

Special relativity satisfies Lorentzian symmetry due to the constancy of the speed of light and the special relativity principle.

However, in reality, the aether makes the speed of light locally invariant, so the Lorentz transformation is not necessary.

2 Recommendations

In reality, Stoke's theory (1845) of complete aether dragging around all stars and planets (big masses) is the correct theory. The only problem with this theory is the starlight aberration, which couldn't be explained at the time.

The explanation of this phenomenon is given with a correct understanding of the behavior of the photon.

JES

The main point is what kind of assumption you need to assure the invariance of the speed of light Independent of the motion of the source.

1) This is assured on one hand by the structure of SR itself, with its Lorenz transformations which do not respect the usual laws of vector addition of adding velocities. All this machinery works, but seems complicated.

2) If you had an aether everywhere, immune to any motions, with the property that the speed of light respect to it is always c, as soon as light abandons the moving source, it is in the aether, therefore its speed is c respect to aether. This would seem to be the simplest assumption.

I think what happend is that the science workers got fustrateed of not finding any aether, so they finally threw it out and adopted a more complicated

model over a simpler one. (actually a no no)

You say :

Quote :

This is the best concise descriptor [ I have ever seen ] of what exactly took place at that time in the history of physics . They got sure there was NO Aether . They got disappointed , they got even vexed , , , , they went for the second worst option which was accidentally easy-at-hand. They preferred to pay no attention to the relatively fuzzy data analysis system which they had at their disposal . A self-consistent three dimensional remote relation-making would have in all likelihood done much better than determining temporal so-called evolutions { or , rather , non-devolutions } hooked onto relativistic 4D manifold of spacetime .

20th Dec, 2022

See my very simple (repeatedly published) paper on Planck's constant. It is available here in Res. Gate. A student in a laboratory can easily find the density of the ether, it's so simple that at first it's hard to believe.

Get over the mistrust and check for yourself.

1 Recommendation

“…*The main point is what kind of assumption you need to assure the invariance of the speed of light Independent of the motion of the source.*

- that isn’t completely correct, really in the yet 1905 SR version the Lorentz transformations were derived from, including provided that in “*stationary*” inertial reference frame the speed of light is *constant* [2-nd postulate], independently on – [in such frame] “…*the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body*…”.

However, despite that in the quote is in full accordance with the completely natural assumption that the speed of light depends only on some properties of some “ether”, this postulate had become the reason for the postulate that “luminiferous ether” doesn’t exist, and so any inertial frame can be “stationary” one; where the speed of light is the same constant, even if a frame evidently moves in some other frame. What for any normal human looks as strange something, what requires some additional clarification, which doesn’t exist in the SR-1905 and in standard now Minkowski version.

So till now the postulates that there is no ether and no absolute Matter’s spacetime, where some ether could be placed; and that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely equivalent and legitimate, are standard in the mainstream, despite that from these postulates any number of evidently absurd consequences directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follw;

- from what by completely rigorous “proof by contradiction” it is completely rigorously follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, and so some ether at least can exist, that the inertial reference frames are equivalent only limitedly, there exist the preferred inertial frames that are fixed in the 3D absolute space and in at least 3D ether, etc..

“…*2) If you had an aether everywhere, immune to any motions, with the property that the speed of light respect to it is always c, as soon as light abandons the moving source, it is in the aether, therefore its speed is c respect to aether. This would seem to be the simplest assumption….”*

- this “simplest assumption” is quite natural, moreover – rigorously true – see above, however that

- isn’t correct, in a few points: first of all till now many experiments are in accordance with the SR, including with that ether doesn’t exist, so more 100 years there is no frustration among mainstream physicists, even despite the irrationality of the postulates above and that to explain a lot of observed physical effects in mainstream physics really some “ether” is introduced as “physical vacuum”.

Such strange transcendent situation logically inevitably exists in the mainstream because of in the mainstream all fundamental phenomena/notions, including “Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, are principally transcendent/uncertain/irrational.

The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

- and concretely at application in the case in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, which is based on the conception, where, including, it is rigorously shown that Matter’s ultimately fundamental and universal spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (*cτ,X,Y,Z,ct*), where the ultimate base of Matter – the at least [5]4D dense lattice of [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE] is placed, and practically everything in Matter is determined by the logical construction and properties of FLEs,

and so it is really explained what are really the Lorentz transformations, why and how they act at the ether existence, etc.

Cheers

31st Dec, 2022

I have a quite different perspective than Dr. Junquera, but I reached a similar conclusion. If the local frame has a sub-relativistic velocity with respect to the aether, preferred-frame aether theory predicts that observers will always measure c as the speed of light.

Underlying this result is the behavior of the clocks that are used for the light-speed measurement. Their local-frame velocities cause them to lose their preferred-frame synchronization. If you don’t correct for that de-synchronization then the clocks will always imply a local light speed of c. If you do correct for it, they will reveal the anisotropic light speed predicted by aether theory.

I posted a pre-print describing this on my RG profile: .

“…*Underlying this result is the behavior of the clocks that are used for the light-speed measurement. Their local-frame velocities cause them to lose their preferred-frame synchronization. If you don’t correct for that de-synchronization then the clocks will always imply a local light speed of c*….”

- that is essentially correct, indeed if in an absolute, i.e. that is at rest in the 3D space of the Matter’s absolute spacetime [more see the SS post on page 5], frame two clocks are synchronized, then, if one clock is accelerated by some real force up to a speed *V* in the frame, then the clock will tick slower in Lorentz factor, and so, of course, the clocks become to be de-synchronized.

Nonetheless at the acceleration not only the de-synchronization above happens, if not only clocks, but a specific system of synchronized mutually [in the system] clocks and scaled [space] rules “inertial reference frame” is accelerated, so all clocks and rules in the system are in the system at rest,

- besides that measurement in the moving frame of the speed of light will result in that in all direction the measured speed of light is equal to *c*,

- but also measured values of energy, momentums, etc. – all other physical parameters of some bodies – will, though differ from the values that are measured in the absolute frame – nonetheless the using the results in the moving frame quite correctly describes what happens with the bodies, etc., at their existence and interactions. The Galileo-Poincare relativity principle do is very mighty principle.

So, say that

“…. *If you do correct for it, they will reveal the anisotropic light speed predicted by aether theory*.…..”

- is really a questionable scientifically wording. At any “correction” of really uniquely correct “Lorentz synchronization”, say in practice by using “Einstein synchronization”, i.e. if using some other synchronization happens, the synchronized by such a way clocks will show some really physically senseless showings,

- including “anisotropic light speed”, which by no means can be predicted by really correct aether theory - say, in framework of the SS&VT physical model, see the SS post above in the thread.

Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_a_debate_about_twins_paradox_so_bad#view=63a752e5412c61ddf70df2cd/18is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

Discussing the consequences of the existence of a rest frame in the universe

Discussion

473 replies

- Asked 6th Jun, 2022

- Sydney Ernest Grimm

The detection of the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) from everywhere around in the universe has puzzled theorists. Not least because of the discovery of a Doppler effect in the data that can only be interpreted as direct related to the velocity and the direction of the motion of the solar system. But if it is correct we have to accept that there exist a rest frame in the universe. Actually we can determine the existence of absolute space and that is not in line with the “belief” of most of the theorists.

There is another method to verify the results: counting the numbers and measuring the brightness of galaxies from everywhere around. The first results – using visible light – were not convincing. But a couple of days ago The Astrophysical Journal Letters published a paper from Jeremy Darling with results that were obtained with the help of radio waves: “*The Universe is Brighter in the Direction of Our Motion: Galaxy Counts and Fluxes are Consistent with the CMB Dipole”* (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08).

In other words, it is real. We can determine the existence of "absolute space". Moreover, we know from set theory (mathematics) that absolute space and phenomenological reality must share the same underlying properties otherwise we cannot detect the existence of absolute space. The consequence is that absolute space has a structure too, because phenomenological reality shows structure.

None of the grand theories in physics is founded on the structure of absolute space. Therefore we are facing a serious problem in respect to the foundations of theoretical physics (the conceptual framework of physics).

Another Special Relativity thought experiment

Discussion

926 replies

- Asked 5th Mar, 2022

- Richard Lewis

Is there a modification of General Relativity which takes into account successfully the effects ascribed to dark matter and dark energy?

Discussion

177 replies

- Asked 11th Feb, 2022

- Stefano Quattrini

Several attempts at modifying the EFE to include the effects of Dark Matter and Dark energy have been done in the last 40 years.

One of the latest attempts comes from Gary Nash who modified the Stress Tensor of the EFE including a quantity which takes account of the gravitational energy avoiding the Pseudo tensors.

The introduction of the Line element field, first studied by Hawking is the entity which made a difference in this study

Let's see what are the comments and alternatives...

Preprint

- Jan 2021

The quantum gravity path integral involves a sum over topologies that invites comparisons to worldsheet string theory and to Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory. However, the latter are naturally associated with the non-abelian algebra of quantum fields, while the former has been argued to argued to define an abelian algebra of superselected o...

Article

- Jun 1998

This paper begins with an elementary representation of the problem of spin statistics. Using the previously ignored fact that the antisymmetric rotation of half-integral spin can only rake the form of a Mobius strip and not a cylinder, it immediately follows that half-integral spin is nonorientable. Integral spin consists of a further rotation whic...

Article

- Mar 2007

According to the recently proposed model of spacetime, various difficulties of quantum field theories and semiclassical quantum gravity on curved 4-Minkowski spacetimes gain new formulations, leading to new solutions. The quantum mechanical effects appear naturally when diffeomorphisms are lifted to 2-morphisms between topoi. The functional measure...

Get high-quality answers from experts.