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
Portland, Oregon

Special Relativity
By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

The Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) of 1887 was widely interpreted by the scientific community to have conclusively proved the non-existence of a light conducting “luminiferous ether”.  In 1905 Albert Einstein published his work that was eventually known as the Theory of Relativity.  In it he stated that, “The speed of light is isotropic in every inertial frame.”  This was interpreted to mean that there is no ether, and that light is conducted without a medium – an intuitively unsatisfying conclusion.

But, it is possible to reconceptualize the hypothetical properties of the ether and thereby interpret the results of the MMX in a manner completely consistent with a universe whose space is filled with a light-conducting ether.  In the Theory of Absolutes, we have hypothesized a universe filled with Dipole Particles and Grid Points that conduct light.  These conduction entities provide the backbone of a model consistent with the experimental results of Michelson-Morley.  The model proposed likewise gives an alternate mechanistic explanation for the phenomena predicted by Einstein’s theory.  The problem with the Einsteinian conceptualization of the universe is that it has no understructural basis.  It has the appearance of truth because of the empirical observations that appear consistent with his mathematical predictions.  Still, the world as Einstein has conceived it is intuitively unsatisfying.

The Theory of Relativity gained preeminence when the Luminiferous Ether model appeared to show a flaw.  Relativity gained increasing acceptance as Einstein’s theory was seen as consistent with the results of the MMX, as well as predicting other phenomena which were later shown to be accurate.  The effects predicted by Einstein’s Theory are well known, including: the famous E=mc2 conversion of mass into energy, time dilation, length contraction.  Later, his General Theory of Relativity predicted the bending of light by gravity.  For any competing theory to gain preeminence, it must be likewise consistent with this experimental reality, and make the world appear more simple by giving an underlying explanation which gave unity and common underlying mechanism to the panoply of physical phenomenon.  

A glaring deficiency of the conception of the Einsteinian universe is the lack of an underling mechanism for the conduction of an electromagnetic field through space.  Thus both hypothesis and understanding of reality under the Einsteinian model necessarily depend upon the interpreting the implications of this mathematics-only based model of the universe.  And given that we live in a world of force, law, and predictability, declaring that space conducts light by a computational method flies in the face of all experience, and leaves us without a visceral sense of satisfaction.

We need a process and structure-based model of the underlying nature of space, time, mass, and the conduction of light to satisfy the deep need we feel for the predictability of a cause and effect universe.   The null result of the MMX is not in question.  Rather, it should cause us to look for another hypothetical model consistent with the mathematics of relativity and the experimental evidence.

The Theory of Absolutes provides an alternative hypothesis, a theory that gives mechanistic cause and effect explanatory power to the panoply of near-magical phenomenon seen at the subatomic level.  The MMX finds its alternative solution in the nature of the Dipole Sea and Grid Points.  

A foundational axiom in the Theory of Absolutes is that: Electromagnetic radiation (photons and EM waves) travel through space (i.e. the rest frame, the Absolute frame, the DP Sea/Matrix) with an axial (longitudinal) velocity equal to the local speed of light – not more, not less, and a radial (perpendicular) velocity up to the speed of light.

The velocity of the photon is best quantified using the cylindrical polar coordinate system (r,f,z).  This symbolic terminology refers to the photon’s (radial velocity, radial direction, axial velocity).  The photonic radial velocity can be zero to almost the speed of light, the radial direction can be zero to 360°, and the axial velocity is always equal to the speed of light.

The emitter (photon source) has an axial velocity with relationship to the Absolute Frame.  The photon is emitted from the source in any direction over the entire surface of a sphere) in relationship to the axial velocity of the source.  The axial velocity of the source will add a radial velocity component perpendicular to the axial velocity of the photon.  

Take for example a photon emitted at 90° to the axial path of the emitter.   After emission, the axial velocity of the photon will be equal to the local speed of light (as always).  The photon will have a radial velocity equal to the axial velocity of the emitter.  Thus, the photon will leave the emitter, and move along with it at the same velocity, thereby appearing to move straight from the emitter regardless of the direction that the beam is aimed as it moves through the ether.

In the case of a photon emitted in an axial direction collinear to the axial velocity of the source, the energy of the photon will increase.  If the photon is released in an axial direction pointed opposite to the axial velocity the source, then the energy of the photon will decrease.   

In the general case of a photon emitted at any angle above collinear (0°) to just less than perpendicular (90°) from axial, the photon will: 1) add energy (increase its wavelength) based on the axial component of its direction of emission, 2) add a component of radial velocity to the photon.

The vector sum of: 1) the axial velocity vector of the photon, and 2) the photon’s radial velocity create 3) a vector sum larger than the allowed local speed of light.  

The Theory of Absolutes includes a hypothesis that the universe has an absolute frame of reference.  And, included within this hypothesis of an absolute frame is the implication of orthogonal vectors that act as independent variables.  But, if this is the case, and every photon’s axial velocity is equal to the local speed of light, and the radial velocity of that same photon may approach a value arbitrarily close to the local speed of light, then the vector sum of these two velocity vectors is far greater than 186,000 miles/sec in an absolute frame.  

But, the scientific establishment has ignored the concept of a radial photon velocity, since the Theory of Relativity is based upon the photon having only an axial velocity.  The problem of the variability of the appearance of phenomenon is resolved by ignoring the possibility of a radial velocity component, declaring that light has only an axial component, and that the two frames can be related by a transformation of their standard of length, rate of passage of time, and energy content of mass and fields.  

While this concept works, and its predictions are validated by experiment, I do not believe it reflects the true nature of the universe.  I believe that the time dilation, length contraction, and mass/energy accumulation effects are actually related to the change in the m and e of space as the absolute value of the axial velocity of the photon emitter increases.

When the absolute velocity of a particle of mass increases, the Kinetic Energy Field in the space around the mass increases.  As a result of the increased energy stored in this space, the m and e of the space changes; the speed of light in that space decreases.  Thus, length appears to shorten because light cannot travel as far in a moment.  Mass appears to accumulate because the Kinetic Energy Fields around the high velocity particle are equivalent to mass in an energetic manner.  The absolute tick of time does not change, but the rate at which time-keeping mechanisms oscillate decreases because of the slowed speed of light signal conduction in that local high m e environment.   

The Michelson-Morley Experiment did not prove that there was no light-conducting ether.  Rather, the MMX failed to detect an “ether drift” because all of the emitters used in the experiment (source, reflectors, half-reflectors, refractors, and target) had exactly the same radial velocity.  This experimental apparatus cannot show evidence of an ether which is capable of separating out the photon’s axial and radial velocity and conducting them separately.  Such an ether will cause the experimental apparatus to nullify any evidence of a radial velocity.  Thus, the experiment will only measure the axial speed of light, which is always the same in every inertial reference frame.  

As a result of his assumption that the summation of the radial and axial velocity vector of light always equals a constant, Einstein applied the variability that should have been attributed to light to distance, time, and energy.  The result of this incorrect attribution of light’s constant vector sum velocity was the somewhat non-intuitive declaration that light was conducted by no medium, that time dilated, length contracted, and energy/mass accumulate in higher velocity frames of reference.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment was conducted under the assumption that the vector sum of the axial and radial velocity of light always added to the same value.  At this stage in the evolution of scientific thought, the concept of the photon had not yet appeared, and the understanding of Electromagnetic waves was in its infancy.  The world was operating in a largely mechanistic paradigm, and it was logical to extend the concept of the conduction of sound through water and air to the concept of the ether.  

When light, and the proposed light-conducting ether, did not behave in a manner consistent with the expected properties of a mechanical ether, the scientists of the day concluded that there was no ether at all.  The mechanical ether model was not capable of making a distinction between the axial and radial components of the light wave.  To conceptualize such an ether required the assumption of an ether which had consciousness, and was able to conduct different types of energy information in different ways.

There were attempts made to save the mechanical model of the light-conducting ether, such as by hypothesizing that the ether was dragged along with the earth, and was hence stationary.  But, various problems arose with each model, and no alternate explanation could be found to rescue it.  When Einstein proposed his thesis on Relativity (which he had not called a theory of relativity), a new paradigm was born which was capable of providing a conceptual framework to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.  Soon, a new scientific dogma was established, that light has no conducting medium, and physics became a study in the implications of mathematics, rather than a study of the interactions and rules of interactions between particles and their fields.

Thus, the scientists of the 1887 era, to the present, have concluded that the “luminiferous ether” did not exist.  This conception has become established scientific fact, which is no longer questioned.  But as discussed above, if Michelson-Morley had been investigating an ether which they conceptualized as being capable of carrying photons with an independent axial and radial velocity vector, the DP Sea/Matrix-based ether theory would been consistent with the experimental evidence.  

We shall now examine that Michelson-Morley Experiment, so as to understand how the experiment did not show the expected result of a mechanical, sound-conducting type of ether, but that its results would be consistent with a DP Sea/Matrix-based ether theory.

The MMX utilized an interferometer constructed as follows:

When the interferometer was rotated 90 degrees, it was expected that the interference pattern would change.  The ether as conceptualized was supposed to cause the time of travel on one leg to be longer because the amount of ether that had to be negotiated was longer because one leg of the apparatus (which caused light to be split and go at perpendicular angles and recombine to show interference) would be invariably longer than the other.  The experiment expected that when the apparatus was rotated, that the expected difference in the rate of travel of light across the ether would cause a difference in the ratio of how long the legs took to travel across the ether.  And, as a result of this difference in rate, the interference fringes produced by these two beams recombining would change position.  If the light conducting ether behaved in a manner consistent with the conventional mechanical ether, this experiment would have shown the movement in fringe interference.  I believe that the null result actually showed that the assumptions about the nature of the ether were inaccurate.  

The method of testing the hypothesis was brilliant, but it produced a null result.  For its brilliance, and the ultimate implications of the experiment, Michelson received a Nobel Prize in 1907.  The results of his experiment invalidated the assumptions of the entire scientific establishment about the nature of the ether.  But, instead of reconceptualizing the ether, the ether was assumed to be nonexistent.  This left the door open for the mathematicians to come in and create a new conceptualization of space and time based around the faulty assumption that the vector sum of the axial and radial components of a photon’s velocity are always equal to only its measured axial velocity.

The null result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment sent a shockwave through the scientific establishment of 1887.  Einstein resolved the problem by declaring that the total vector velocity of a photon (axial and radial vector sum) could not add to a total greater than the local axial speed of light.  This created the necessary conclusion that time, space, and energy must be modified to transform from one frame to the other.

In the MMX, the photon made a forward and backward trip along the hypotenuse of the triangle, and a portion of its trip along the base and height of the triangle.  When the experimental apparatus was rotated, it should have altered the transit time taken by the photons on each leg they were being conducted by a mechanical ether.  This would have changed the ratio of their transit times.  As a result of the change in the relative transit times, the two legs should have arrived at the target screen in a different phase relationship, causing the interferometer to show a fringe-shift.  But, the fact that the photon appeared to take no more time traveling this longer distance as it made its trip across the ether wind eventually convinced the entire scientific establishment to abandon the theoretical pursuit or understanding of the luminiferous ether.