How DSSU Relativity Resolves the Speed Paradox (Intro)

Measurable Absolute Motion Resolves a (speed) Paradox in Einstein’s Special Relativity

Conrad Ranzan
Published on the Cellular Universe website (www.CellularUniverse.org) 2010, rev 2011
URL: http://www.CellularUniverse.org/R2SpeedParadoxIntro.htm

With the discovery and repeated experimental confirmation of the existence of a luminiferous-and-gravitational aether, the need arises for a theory of absolute motion —absolute motion through a space medium. The need is for a theory in which motion is referenced to aether; a theory in which Einstein’s theory of relativity is subsumed by a more general theory of absolute and relative motion. DSSU* relativity is just such an encompassing theory. For example, Einstein’s Doppler-Effect equation can be derived from an aether theory (herein called DSSU relativity).
The present Paper details that constant circular motion as well as constant linear motion represent absolute motion. It is shown that both must involve real retardation of clocks. Also, it is shown, using a space-travel scenario, that when such absolute motions are oppositely directed there are strange consequences —notably the speed paradox.

* DSSU is the acronym for Dynamic Steady State Universe. It is a model based on the premise that all things are processes.

Keywords: Special relativity; relative motion; absolute motion; absolute space; Doppler effect; aether; absolute inertial motion; DSSU cosmology; Dynamic Steady State Universe.

The complete Research paper: How DSSU Relativity Resolves the Speed Paradox.
(A 16-page "Portable Document File" opens in a new Window)

Introductory Discussion

Einstein’s purely relative-motion equations can be converted and expressed as aether-referenced equations. Einstein’s equations involving motion in abstract geometric space can be converted and used for absolute space. –CR

Einstein postulated that only relative movements between objects are physically relevant; absolute inertial motions cannot be measured and cannot even be defined. Simply put, absolute inertial motion (constant-speed straight-line motion with respect to a preferred frame of reference) has no meaning in his special relativity. Einstein made it quite clear, there is no place in his theory for a preferred frame of reference. All inertial motion is relative, relative to whoever is observing the motion (or, relative to whatever object is designated as a stand-in for the observer).

However, physical reality does not agree with Einstein’s theory. Absolute motion can be detected —in fact it was repeatedly detected throughout the twentieth century! For further details see The Aether Experiments and the Impact on Cosmology.

Now the fact that Einstein ignored (even misinterpreted) the evidence, concentrating his efforts in furthering his purely mathematical field theories, is interesting but understandable. It is understandable because Einstein, as a Platonist, considered the abstract world more real than the substantive world. However, the fact that the conventional Physics Community ignored the evidence —even imposing publication restrictions and censorship— is shocking and bizarre. It is a long story; and still unfolding. Here’s the ultra short version: All those individuals and institutions with a vested interest in Einstein’s Relativity fear the evidence, the evidence with the power to radically alter a cherished theory, and fear the revolutionary implications that come with absolute inertial motion.

Revolutionary implications? Exactly! ... The experimental evidence of absolute motion means that space is not empty. It means space has an undeniable degree of absoluteness. It means that space (the vacuum) can be accurately described as being aether permeated. It means that conventional Physics has it wrong —wrong, ever since the historic year of 1887. Most embarrassing.

Historical view of Aether as a light conducting medium: Somewhat as sound waves consist of vibrations of a material medium (such as air), it was postulated that electromagnetic waves are propagated in a rarefied, all-pervasive medium called “the aether,” which was assumed to be so ethereal (and non-viscous) that planets pass through it without appreciable friction. The electromagnetic field was taken to be a certain kind of stress in the aether, somewhat similar to stresses that occur in ordinary solid, liquid, and gaseous materials that transmit the waves of sound and mechanical strains.

For a concise history of aether theory see: The History of the Aether Theory.

Einstein was well aware of the serious consequences of evidence of absolute motion. In a letter of July 1925 to Edwin E. Slosson, Einstein confessed that “Should the positive result [of the Miller aether-motion experiments] be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex.”^[1] [Emphasis added]

Einstein had always accepted the conclusion of the famous Michelson and Morley aether-drift experiments: The conclusion that no motion was detected; the so-called 'null result.' But now, Einstein's contemporary, Dayton Miller, was accumulating positive aether-motion results. He had little choice but to hope and assume “... that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (–Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921, with added emphasis)^[1] Imagine the suspense; much of your life’s work hanging in the balance; great theories threatened by an essence substance that is as close to nothingness as is possible to conceive!

And as it happened, absolute motion was discovered.

“The effect [of aether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect.”
–Dayton Miller (1928)^[1]

The discovery was, for the most part, ignored. When it couldn’t be ignored, it was discredited. This went on for the lengthy balance of the twentieth century. It may sound rash but evidently the (State-sponsored) Physics Community self-censured into stagnation. Even as recently as 2005, mainstream scientists continued to believed that "If future experiments were to reveal a non-zero aether drift, then Einstein's relativity would crumble." That statement appears in the Preface written by Diana Buchwald and Kip S. Thorne for a special edition of the book The Born-Einstein Letters (Palgrave Macmillan, US, 2004). (This edition of Einstein’s book was published as part of the 2005's Relativity Centenary celebrations.) Can they honestly be unaware of what may arguably be the discovery of the century? —or are they blinded by an irrational fear of the demise of Einstein’s relativity?

While this situation continues, it is left to others to address the cascade of implications that flow when one discovery leads to other discoveries. It is the independent researchers who must deal with the discovery and the repeated experimental confirmation of the existence of a space medium —descriptively called a luminiferous-and-dynamic aether.

The irony in all this is that Einstein’s fear was unfounded. Although, the existence of aether was confirmed, its existence need not have been cause for concern. Einstein and his followers were so strongly opposed to the aether idea that they missed an unprecedented opportunity to actually extend his great theory —to extend relativity to include a ‘preferred frame’ and encompass absolute inertial motion.

Lacking the concept of absolute inertial motion Einstein’s relativity leads to a paradox. The first half of the Paper details the paradox —the speed paradox. The second half resolves it. (The Appendix gives the mathematical proof.)

Supplementary Discussion

Absolute motion is the key discovery.

What does this mean for relativity theory? It means that Einstein’s purely relative-motion equations can be converted and expressed as aether-referenced equations. Einstein’s equations involving motion in abstract geometric space can be converted and used for absolute space. It means that Einstein’s relativity becomes a sub-domain of a broader theory encompassing absolute as well as relative motions (also, intrinsic as well as apparent effects).

The cascade of implications starts like this: The discovery of absolute motion leads to a space medium which leads to the sub-summation of relativity into a broader theory —a theory with far more explanatory power.

Here is the startling sequence that leads to theory unification: Absolute motion leads to aether which, in turn, must serve as a light-propagation medium (which Clerk Maxwell had claimed all along was needed to make sense of the electromagnetic theory). It was the existence of an aether medium that allowed Maxwell to claim that the velocity of light from moving sources was invariant. (In other words, Maxwell had a logical cause for c to be constant, Einstein did not.) Now, if light is a wave that travels in the aether medium and sound is a wave that travels in an atomic/molecular medium, it is easy to see the opportunity for theory unification.

The properties of the aether —the luminiferous-and-gravitational aether— as fascinating as they are, will not be detailed here. The purpose of this supplementary discussion is to highlight how two separate and distinct theories of the Doppler effect can be brought together under a new Unified Doppler equation. (DSSU relativity is the sub-summing theory.)

In conventional physics the Doppler effect for moving light sources is treated as a completely independent phenomenon unrelated to the Doppler effect for moving sound sources. No equation relates the two phenomena.

Doppler Phenomena

Doppler effect: The change in the observed frequency of an acoustic or electromagnetic wave due to the motion of source and/or observer.

Historical note: In 1842, Christian Doppler predicted that the frequencies of received waves were dependent on the motion of the source or observer relative to the propagating medium. His predictions were promptly checked and confirmed for sound waves by placing the source or observer on one of the newly developed railroad trains.

Albert Einstein on the other hand developed a Doppler shift expression specifically for light waves which according to his theory did not require the presence of a propagating medium. In his original article on the special theory of relativity (Ann. Physik, 17, 891, 1905), Einstein made the Doppler shift dependent upon the relative velocity —that is, upon the velocity of the source relative to the observer.

The existence of aether as a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves changes everything. The Flowchart below traces the unifying structure of the mathematical relationships. The chart shows that the wave frequency, f, picked up by the Detector is determined by the motion (collinear speed v_S) of the Source and by the motion (collinear speed v_D) of the Detector.


	Flowchart showing how the Doppler equations are related.

The DSSU Unified Doppler equation is derived in the Appendix to the main research Article.

It is important to realize that Einstein’s Doppler equation is not a special case of the Absolute. It is by no means obvious, but both equations give the same answer; they must because the frequency Detector displays the actual frequency and does not care which equation the Detector-frame Observer decides to use as a check.

Then it must be that both relativistic expressions are general. The only difference is that the Absolute Doppler expression always uses aether-referenced velocities; while the Einstein Doppler expression always uses purely relative velocities.

Why is this so important? ... It means that within its domain, within its limited sphere of applicability, there is nothing wrong with Einstein’s special relativity.

* * *

Link to the research paper: How DSSU Relativity Resolves the Speed Paradox. The highlight of this paper is the unification (under DSSU Theory) of two Doppler phenomena —familiar effects normally considered to be unrelated.

This is an open-access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

* * *

2011-8 a

References

^ Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look by James DeMeo, Ph.D. Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab. www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

External Resources: For a technical perspective of the paradoxes in relativity see:
Toward a Consistent Theory of Relativistic Rotation in Relativity in Rotating Frames by Robert D. Klauber (2004).
Klauber's Paper includes a useful table summarizing the history of special relativity experiments.

Top of page Back to DSSU Home Page

C. Ranzan

Email:
DSSUresearch@CellularUniverse.org

Site updated: 23-01-06