The Heavens Declare His Handiwork

Previous Page               Next Page


Thomas Lee Abshier, ND


Author, Speaker
Naturopathic Physician

Christian Counselor



Medical Consultations

Marriage Counseling
Seminars, Speaker
Books, Articles
Audio, Video


(503) 255-9500
drthomas@naturedox.com
Portland, Oregon

Resolving the Dilemmas of Relativity
By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND


i) Einstein proposed that time dilated, distance contracted, and that the speed of light was constant as a way of resolving the disparity in the perceived measurements of velocity of a moving body in a second frame of reference.  The idea that time slows down, and that distance contracts while the speed of light remains constant across reference frames, and within reference frames, is counter intuitive.  Nevertheless, extensions of this concept, such as the idea that mass can be converted into energy as per the famous E=mc² equation, have become standard and necessary adjustments to computations for subatomic particle experiments.  Even though computationally successful, and reflective of experiment, these concepts do not reveal the actual mechanism by which light is conducted.

ii) Again, the photon has an axial velocity, which travels only at the local speed of light, whereas the photon’s transverse velocity is imparted to it by the source from which it was created.  The absolute axial/radial velocity is dependent only upon the electromagnetic properties of the local space.  The transverse velocity will likewise be modified depending upon those same electromagnetic properties.

iii) In the Einsteinian explanation, the speed of light is not considered to have an axial component, but rather that the vector sum of the axial and transverse components of light are equal to a constant value, which is invariant across inertial frames of reference.  Thus, when measuring the velocity of a moving object, or the duration of action of a motion, or the distance covered by a moving object, or the mass of an object, or the energy contained by a mass, in another frame of reference which was moving in relationship to my own, the time, distance, mass, and energy of that object would appear different than if it was measured internal to the moving frame.  

iv) The difference in each of these quantities would be modified by the Lorentz factor, which relates the velocity of the frame to the speed of light in a vacuum.

v) The postulates of the Theory of Absolutes corresponds to the computational predictions of the Einsteinian Theory of relativity at relative velocities approaching the speed of light.  But, the Theory of Absolutes implies that at low velocities, that the Lorentz factor will not be accurate.  Both inertial frames (i.e. constant velocity/non-accelerating) will probably have a velocity compared to the absolute frame.  Thus, each particle of mass or wave moving in that frame will modify the  and  of the space in that local frame, and as a result, light will travel at a different rate in that frame.  

vi) The implications of this theory are:

(1) Clocks will run slower in a medium with a higher  and , thus time will appear to dilate.  All the mechanisms in a clock, or any device using mass or waves to measure the rate of passage of time will be affected by the rate of conduction of light in that frame.  Thus, processes will take longer to occur.  Periods of oscillation will expand because the underlying processes that mediate those oscillatory actions will take more Moments to complete because of the change in the underlying rate of transfer of electrical to magnetic information, and vice versa.

(2) Light will not travel as far each moment in the moving frame, thus distance will appear to contract.  

(3) Velocity is decreased in the moving frame because the rate of transfer of information in the moving frame is affected by the increase in the  and  due to the movement of particles in that space.  

(4) Likewise, the mass energy of a moving particle increases because the amount of magnetic field organization associated with the velocity of each of the particles.  

(5) The amount of change of the  and  with velocity is not linear because the absolute velocity will always be in ratio with the absolute frame, unstressed, vacuum speed of light.  

(6) These two conceptualizations of space, time, mass, and energy (Einsteinian and TOA) collapse to equivalence and correspondence at high velocities, but at low velocities, they are different because of the lack of the consideration of the fact that both frames have a velocity in comparison to the absolute frame.

(7) Thus regardless of the direction or speed of the laboratory frame, the experiment measuring the velocity of light in a vacuum will always yield the same result.  The experiment will never detect any evidence that the light has a transverse velocity, other than by inference based on the knowledge of the velocity of the source.  

vii) The dilemmas, paradoxes, and confusions of relativity arise when attempting to compare the measurements of the velocity of light or mass in frame of reference a, and then making the same measurements from a frame a’ which has a relative movement.  

(1) In this examination, we are only considering frames, a and a’ that are both inertial (constant velocity, which means not accelerating).

(2) Frame a has an absolute velocity of v, and laboratory frame a’ is traveling at an absolute velocity of v’.  

(3) The velocities of frames a and a’ can be measured with reference to a 3rd reference frame a”, but the relative velocity will still be v regardless of the choice of absolute or arbitrary reference frame from which we have originally defined the velocities of these two frames.  

(4) It is the relative motion, v, between the two frames, and the attempt to measure the velocity of one versus the velocity of the other.

viii) The result of measuring the elapsed time and distance in one frame, from the vantage point of another is that the basic measurements of time, distance, mass, and energy yields different values, as compared to the measurement of those values inside the frame.  

(1) A physics experiment used to illustrate the concepts of relativity is the car traveling down a road, while aiming a pulse of light perpendicular to the path of the car, reflected back from a mirror, while timing the duration of the round trip.   

(2) The duration of the time of flight of the pulse of light, and the distance covered by the pulse, computes out to a speed of light traveling faster than the speed of light.  

(a) The hypotenuse of the transverse and the perpendicular distance traveled by the photon x, divided by the interval of time elapsed for the photon pulse to leave and return t, gives the effective observed speed of light.

(b) But since the distance x, the pulse travels increases as the velocity of the car increases (because of the larger transverse increment of distance), this appears to indicate that the photon travels at increasing speeds as the source velocity increases as per the calculation of vphoton = x/t.  

(c) The net effect is a value larger than the speed of light in a stationary frame.  Einstein did not accept the hypothesis of a variable speed of light as a resolution to this problem.  Instead, he postulated that the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum, when measured in any inertial reference frame.  Thus, the t and x must be expanded and shrunk to yield the hypothesized constant speed of light as the speed of the car increases.

(d) Thus, since that time, the units of time and distance have been considered to be variable, or relative, depending on the frame in which they were generated or measured.  This allows us to accommodate the constancy of the speed of light.  

(e) The experimental predications that have followed from this assumption have appeared to validate its accuracy.

(f) But, this solution of a constant speed of light implies a counterintuitive conclusion about time and distance.  A more reasonable solution is that light has a perpendicular and transverse component.  And, that light changes its velocity as the electromagnetic properties of space change.

(3) Einstein’s hypothesis of time slowing, and distance contracting, coincides with the Theory of Absolutes postulate, but gives a reason for the change in the time dilation and length contraction with increased velocity.  The common conception of space, time, energy, and mass and the mechanism for the conduction of light, does not contain the elements necessary to understand why time dilates and distance contracts.

(a) The Einsteinian explanation for time dilation and space contraction is rationalized by giving space-time an ad hoc, mechanismless, geometric, space-time character.   In so doing, the units of space and time are merely assigned values that correspond to the transformation of these values associated with the Lorentz Transformation.

(b) And, while this computation has proven to be a valuable method of  of the standard of length and the rate of progression of time, based upon the velocity of the photon source.

(c) And, while this explanation gives an accurate explanation, which predicts and describes observed phenomena, there is no underlying mechanism which can be used to give meaning or tangibility to this process.

(d) Hence, the reason for the hypothesis of the Dipole Sea, its electromagnetic character, and the alteration of the Electromagnetic conductive characteristics of the Sea associated with changes in velocity, gravity, fields, and media.  

ix) While working as a patent clerk, Einstein pondered the problems of light and the meaning of simultaneity.  In one of his thought (gedanken) experiments, he examined the implications of the disparity in the observations of the time of strike recorded by a stationary and a moving observer both watching the same lightning strikes.

(1) The experiment was conducted by first driving two lighting rods into the ground next to straight length of railroad track.  

(2) Next, the experimenter measured the distance between the two lightning rods, and drove a stake in the ground at a point equidistant between the two rods.

(3) The stationary observer stood at the stake, and held a 90 mirror so that he was able to look forward toward the tracks, and see the right and left lightning rod in the mirrors.

(4) Likewise, a moving observer, traveling in the train also held a 90 mirror outside of the window, and at the point when he passed the stake, could see the right and left lightning rods in his mirrors.

(5) At that point, a pair of lightning bolts hit the two lightning rods at the same time, from the frame of reference of the stationary observer.

(6) Einstein postulated that the moving observer saw the left (forward) lightning rod as having been hit first.

x) While this supposed contradiction in simultaneity satisfies Einstein’s theory of slowing of time, and contraction of distance in the moving frame, in fact such a postulate is most likely not correct.

(1) The more mechanical explanation of the situation is that there truly is an absolute frame, that the lightning bolts truly did strike the lighting rods at the same moment in absolute time, and that the stationary observer and the moving observer both saw the lighting strikes as simultaneous events on both sides of the 90 mirror.

(2) But there was a difference in what the two observers saw.  The mirror has an absolute velocity, and its velocity is imparted to the reflected photon.

(a) Thus, in the case of the stationary observer, the photon will have no energy added to or subtracted from the photon due to the movement of the reflecting surface.

(b) And, in the case of the moving observer, the photon will be red shifted by the receding mirror, and blue shifted by the advancing mirror.

(3) In this explanation, there are no dilemmas or conflicts about time and distance.  Rather, the observation of photons from a simultaneous event is simply seen as being modified by the energy held by the reflecting surface, and hence transmitted to the photon during collision/reflection.

xi) Justifying the existence of a light-carrying medium must include, and resolve, the lack of interference pattern change noted in the Michelson Morley Experiment of 1886.

(1) This problem resolves when introducing the hypothesis of a photon with orthogonally independent velocities.  In other words, when the photon emits from a moving source, hypothetically, it has a velocity perpendicular to the speed of light portion of the photon beam.

(2) The Michelson Morley Experiment was devised to detect the rate of travel of the earth through the light-carrying medium, the luminiferous ether.  But, there was no evidence in a change in the speed of transmission of the light, as would have been expected when changing the direction the light was directed in relationship to the rotation of the earth.  

(a) Sound is carried by air, which was considered to be an analogous to the method that light conducted through the luminiferous ether.  In the case of sound, a sound wave directed forward toward a receding reflecting surface is delayed in its arrival due to the movement of the reflecting surface.  Likewise, a wind blowing in the direction of travel will speed the arrival of the sound wave.

(b) Light conducts forward through the luminiferous ether at a constant rate regardless of the rate of movement of the source, but its frequency is modified based upon the perpendicular velocity of the source in relationship to the Absolute frame.

(c) Sound does not carry a transverse component associated with the source.  Light carries a component of velocity perpendicular to the direction of radiation.

(d) These differences in conducting mechanism explain why using the analogy of sound did not produce the expected effects in the Michelson Morley Experiment.

(e) The photon must have a perpendicular velocity to make a round trip between source and mirror, but it also has a transverse velocity which is related to the Absolute kinetic velocity of the source.  This is the fundamental difference between the mechanisms of energy transfer in the generation and propagation of sound as compared to light.

(f) The Michelson Morley Experiment was a de facto proof of the sideways movement of light.  The MMX was unable to detect the presence of the ether by an objective change in the expected experimental parameter, but it did show that the ether was capable of conducting light with a transverse kinetic velocity.

(g) In short, the MMX used an incorrect assumption about the how light propagated through the ether.  Thus, the conclusion that there was no ether was incorrect.  A more appropriate experiment to detect the presence of an ether should be productive if it is assumed that velocity through the ether will alter the  and  of the mass in that space.  (See experiment below).

(3) In the case where a photon is aimed toward a target, and the target is stationary with respect to the Absolute Frame, and the source is moving with respect to the Absolute frame, the target will receive a bluer photon.  The extra blueness in this case will be reflective of the absolute velocity of the source, but until the absolute frame can be located, this experiment cannot be conducted.

(a) The blue shift of light can of course be observed between any two frames with relative movement.  The blue shift is created by the spatial compression of the electrical and magnetic components of the photon as it was generated.  This compression of wave components results in the experience of a shorter wavelength, higher frequency, and bluer photon by the target.

(b) If a light-source has a known velocity in relation to the Absolute frame, the absolute energy of the source will be added to the photon’s absolute energy.

(c) But, since at present, we have not determined the location of the Absolute frame, we can only infer the relative velocity of the source and target when we observe the alteration of an expected frequency coming from a source.

(4) We intersect the topic of Relativity when examining the experiment where light is bounced off of a mirror on the side of the road from a moving car.

(a) The experiment brings up questions about how fast time is moving, and how long distance is in one frame vs. another.

(b) Consider two frames:

(i) The stationary frame, e.g. the mirror frame (a)

(ii) And, the moving frame, e.g. the moving car frame (a’)

(iii) The question regards the measurement of an interval of time and distance, from my frame, of an experiment going on in another frame traveling at a different velocity.

(iv) The relationship of the interval of distance and time measured inside frame (a), compared to the measurement made while in frame (a’) can be related by the Lorentz transformation.

(v) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation.  

(5) The common sense notion about time being constant, and distance being an absolute are challenged by the Lorentz transformation.

(a) According to the Lorentz Transformation, the rate of progression of time is modified in a moving frame in comparison to a stationary frame.  This was Einstein’s solution to the thought problem about the simultaneity of events as illustrated by the lightning strike.  As mentioned above, in this particular case, the two lighting strikes would have been seen at the same time, but the approaching strike would have been more blue, and the receding strike more red.

(6) When considering the validity of the Theory of Absolute in comparison to the Einsteinian theory, I believe the two converge to predict equivalent phenomena, but the two theories explain the method in two different ways.

(a) Einstein predicts that mass will accumulate, based on the equation E=mc², and in fact an accelerated, high velocity, subatomic particle will have a higher energy in an amount in accord with this calcuation.

(b) The TOA predicts mass accumulation, increasing asymptotically to infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light.  But, in the TOA this increase in mass is due to the accumulation in magnetic field strength surrounding the positive and negative DPs due to its velocity through the Absolute frame.  

(c) Einstein predicts time dilation based on a geometric argument, and quantified by the Lorentz transformation.  

(d) The TOA predicts time dilation because of the change in the  and  of space, which cause the speed of light to slow in that space, and as a result causes all the physical objects dependent upon the speed of light conduction of signals to slow down.  Thus, atomic clocks, dependent upon the vibration of Cs will slow down, and fewer cycles will be registered in a moving frame atomic clock than in a stationary frame.

(e) Likewise, Einstein predicts length will contract due to a geometric argument, and computed by the Lorentz Transformation.

(f) The TOA also predicts length will contract in a frame with a greater relative velocity because length is likewise a parameter dependent upon the speed of light in a local space.  Again, the higher velocity creates greater magnetic fields around the higher kinetic energy particles, which causes them to change the  and  of that local space, which changes the distance that light travels each moment, hence changing the absolute inter-atomic distance of a solid meter-stick, hence changing (reducing) the absolute length of each measuring unit.

(g) Thus, the question to be resolved is whether the Theory of Absolutes and its electromagnetically based predictions about length, time, and energy are equivalent to the purely mathematical/geometric concepts of the Lorentz Transformation.

(h) In other words, do the modifications in  and  experienced by the space associated with the conduction of kinetic mass give computational and experimental results equivalent to those computed by the frame-transformation equations of the Lorentz transformation?

(7) I believe these two computational, and conceptual methods will prove be in correspondence:

(a) The Lorentz Transformation has at its heart the Lorentz Factor  = 1/(1 - c/v²).  This equation can be expressed in terms so that its dependence upon the  and  of space is seen by expressing the speed of light in terms of its electromagnetic properties of space: c= 1/.

(b) Thus, the Lorentz Factor becomes  = 1/(1 – 1/∙v²).   This is not proof that the  and  of space change with an increase or decrease in relative velocity.  But, it does show that the two conceptualizations (Lorentzian and Theory of Absolutes) of time dilation, length contraction, and mass accumulation may be based upon a common process.  

(c) Both conceptualizations have the electromagnetic properties of space embedded within them.  Hence  and  are potential variables, and may be the actual entities that provide the variance in physical phenomena (time and distance, and hence velocity), and may as a result be fundamental variables that produce the appearance of time dilation, length contraction, and mass accumulation with increased relative velocity.

(d) Seeing that  and  are at the base of relativistic effects, in turn points at the existence of the Absolute frame.  Both  and  have an absolute value, but that value is modified by the velocity of the laboratory frame as it travels through the Absolute frame.  The variance of  and  with velocity produces the effect of changing rates of procession of various physical processes.  Ultimately, observed relativistic effects will be due to the fact of the disparity in the  and  associated with their respective local frames.

(8) On Earth, our Absolute velocity is probably only a small fraction of c.  Thus, the measured speed of an object in a laboratory frame on earth is probably close to its absolute velocity.

(a) Thus, when comparing the effect of a parameter such as the passage of time in the Absolute frame, compared to passage of time in an earth-based laboratory frame, the effect will probably be small.

(b) Thus, it will be difficult to perform an experiment that will reveal a small disparity in rate of passage of time as measured by an atomic clock in one laboratory frame on earth, compared to the rate of passage of time at another laboratory.

(c) Each location on earth, with the exception of the poles, will experience variability in its local Absolute velocity as measured from the laboratory frame throughout the day.  It is impossible to determine one’s Absolute velocity inside of a single laboratory frame, since all physics experiments give the same result inside an inertial frame.

(d) To conduct an experiment to determine the Absolute velocity of a frame, at a minimum of 4 data points on earth (e.g. North Pole, 0, 120, and 240 longitude at the equator), the deviation in rate of time passage of an atomic clock over an 8 hour period must be measured simultaneously.

(e) This experiment needs an external signal that these 4 points can receive simultaneously to start and stop the time measurement increment.  

(f) If such synchronization could be achieved, the increment of time elapsed in each frame could be correlated to the vector field which would produce the observed time increment disparities.  The ultimate velocity of each point on earth will be a combination of the earth’s rotational velocity, its orbital velocity around the Sun, the Sun’s orbital velocity around the galactic center, the galaxy’s rotation around the cluster, and the cluster’s rotation in the supercluster.

(9) In the Twin Clock Paradox: two atomic clocks are set to the same time.

(a) One is sent to Alpha Centauri at near light-speed, changes direction, and heads earthward at near light-speed.   

(b) The second stays on earth and simply records the interval of time until the other atomic clock returns from Alpha Centauri.

(c) The result of the comparison of intervals of time measured to have elapsed on both frames reveals that the clock that went to Alpha Centauri has measured a shorter elapsed time.

(d) This experiment resolves the problem of comparing experimental data between frames by starting the experiment in proximity, and the returning to proximity to measure the increment of difference.  

(e) The twin clock paradox experiment involves long periods of time, and a large speed differential.  

(f) But, conducting experiments at low speeds, such as conducting time lapse experiments at different locations, and different times of year (positions in orbit around the sun), will probably introduce errors due to the limitations in precision of measurement.  Errors will be introduced associated with communication with, and synchronization between the various measuring points in the system.  In general the problem is communication and comparison of data across frames.  Each of these factors introduces potentially large errors compared to the value of the data (i.e. the elapsed time in each frame).

(10) Implementing the strategy mentioned above, to determine the Absolute velocity of the earth through the ether:

(a) Place an atomic clock, equipped with radio transmitter, in geosynchronous orbit over the North Pole.

(b) Rig 4 balloons with atomic clocks, radio receivers and transmitters, and gravitometers.

(c) Position three balloons on the equator at 0, 120 and 240 longitude, and the fourth over the North Pole.  Adjust the altitude of all balloons so as to stay in an agreed upon gravity value, and record the actual gravity of each.

(d) Initiate and terminate the beginning and ending of recording of an interval of time from the signal of the North Pole Satellite.

(e) Given that the precision of the atomic clocks, and the size of the effect may require a substantial time in the environment, it may be possible to get meaningful variations in data by conducting the experiment for 1 hour each day, and repeating this measurement each day for many days, and thus sun and average the values for each balloon.  This serial observation strategy would also give data regarding the reliability of these values, as they should be roughly consistent over the period of 15 days (which would be the same 1/24th of a year, while the 1 hr measurement would be 1/24th of a day.

(f) The primary parameter to be recorded, averaged, and used for computation is the interval of time that elapses as recorded by each balloon-based atomic clock between the start and stop synchronization pulses.

(g) The computation of the absolute velocity would be based on a field analysis to give a direction and speed of the absolute frame in comparison to the Earth.  Computation of the velocity of the absolute frame is based upon comparing the elapsed time at each balloon, and computing the velocity through the Absolute frame of the ether which would have yielded an equal elapsed time at each point.

(h) Note: this experiment has errors embedded in it.  The direction of the balloons through the ether will vary with time since they are on a rotating sphere.  Thus, the interval of 1 hr is an arbitrary interval that will be necessarily include a change in direction through the ether during the period of measurement.  Since the equatorial balloons are placed at 120 apart, a measurement interval of 8 hours, commencing at the same time each day would be the maximum interval that would provide data that would contribute to a meaningful average.