It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Absolute Space and Time Theory With No Length Contraction

page: 1
10
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 04:52 PM
Absolute theories are those which are not relative. In an absolute theory, space is space and time is time; they don't transform into each other as they do in relativity. Prior to relativity, an absolute theory had been developed using ad hoc proposals of time dilation and length contraction, and that absolute theory was used to derive the Lorentz Equations that are used to this day within relativity. (Einstein derived the same equations from two simple postulates instead of the original ad hoc proposals.)

Twenty three years ago, after about three years of research, I published a paper showing how the Lorentz Equations can be derived from an absolute theory based on time dilation alone. No length contraction is required. I provided a very thorough overview of all experiments done to that time, and the only experiment that could not be explained by my theory was the Michelson-Morley experiment. To explain Michelson-Morley I came up with a simple explanation through an analogy with a rubber band.

If you pin a long rubber band to a cork-board, you can then hold your thumb and forefinger of one hand on the rubber band at one place and do the same with your other hand at another place. You can then take your middle finger to pluck the rubber band. An oscillation will then ensue between the places where you hold the rubber band. You have set up a standing wave. If you now slowly move both hands along the rubber band, the oscillation continues, but the amplitude of the oscillation is always zero where your fingers hold it. Your fingers are enforcing a node condition on the oscillation. If you do the math you will see that you have essentially added the velocity of your fingers to one of the component traveling waves, and subtracted that velocity from the other. (The two component traveling waves add to form the standing wave.)

My explanation for Michelson-Morley is that the electric field is just an oscillation of the aether. And we know that a mirror enforces a node in the electric field. Hence, when the mirrors of the Michelson-Morley apparatus move, the mirrors force the velocity of light to have just the characteristics needed to achieve the famous null result - no length contraction is required.

This post just presents the highlights of the theory. Presenting all of it would likely require many posts, and past experience has indicated that this forum is not best used that way. Fortunately, the editor of Physics Essays has permitted me to re-publish my work on certain websites, and a relatively new fork off of Wikipedia has proven to be friendly toward novel scientific articles. This confluence of events has allowed full publication of the work at the following link:

Click Here to go to the Absolute Theory article on InfoGalactic

The Absolute Theory page originated as a stub, with a request to flesh it out. I have fleshed it out. The intro section concerns an overview of absolute versus relative theory, and the article then presents my earlier work. My work begins with an overview of the axioms of Einstein, Lorentz and my new theory. It then does an in depth look at the experimental record. Next, it discusses electrodynamics transformations within absolute theories, and then a derivation of the Lorentz Equations is done using thought experiments. The concluding sections cover new possible tests that can be done.

I look forward to any comments.

posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 05:02 PM
a reply to: delbertlarson

So your rubberband analogy might be well represented by playing the neck on a stringed instrument?

posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 05:17 PM

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: delbertlarson

So your rubberband analogy might be well represented by playing the neck on a stringed instrument?

The string on a stringed instrument usually has the bottom end fixed, so you get different (and enjoyable to the ear) frequencies if only one end of the string is pinned in a variable way. If by "playing the neck" you mean pinning in two places and keeping the distance between those places fixed while you move them, then yes, that would be the same idea.

posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 05:20 PM
a reply to: delbertlarson

Very cool, Im just wrapping my mind around your op thanks

posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 05:22 PM
a reply to: delbertlarson

the modern universe only exists in our minds, its sad that it takes up so much collective brain power. we have other things to explore and solve

posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:02 PM
a reply to: delbertlarson

No length contraction is required. I provided a very thorough overview of all experiments done to that time

Hi there!

May I ask why length contraction is not needed and why it is such a big deal?

I thought the two, length contruction and time dilation, are not supposed to be individually distinguished. Another words, you have to pick, if speed of light taken as constant, ether distance has shorten or length of the object contracted, or time was dilated. Distance is known...that leaves only length contruction or time was dilated.

It depends what you are measuring but you cannot have both as it is meaningless, imo.

edit on 6-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:39 PM

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: delbertlarson

No length contraction is required. I provided a very thorough overview of all experiments done to that time

Hi there!

May I ask why length contraction is not needed and why it is such a big deal?

I thought the two, length contruction and time dilation, are not supposed to be individually distinguished. Another words, you have to pick, if speed of light taken as constant, ether distance has shorten or length of the object contracted, or time was dilated. Distance is known...that leaves only length contruction or time was dilated.

It depends what you are measuring but you cannot have both as it is meaningless, imo.

I don't totally follow all of your post, but I'll take a shot at providing an answer. You can always reply again if I fall short of the explanation you seek.

IMO the foundations of physics are a big deal. Relativity was a big deal when it supplanted the Lorentzian view, and were it to be shown by experiment that relativity is incorrect that would be a big deal too. If relativity can be set aside, we may make additional progress with a finite rather than point-like understanding of our world, or with an understanding of the aether, and that could have real tangible effects. New understandings often do.

As for the interchangeability of length contraction and time dilation, there is some of that in relativity, and simultaneity issues come into play as well. But in the absolute theories, both mine and that of Lorentz, truth is only known from the preferred frame (although possibly also by Joey Chestnut*) and in that frame length contraction and time dilation are two clearly separate things. In the absolute theories, moving observers infer the Lorentz equations, but only due to their faulty measuring instruments. The preferred frame observers know this. So the transformed quantities do not represent space and time in moving systems, they simply indicate what the faulty measuring devices record. The problem is that under Lorentz it is impossible to find where the preferred frame is. If there is no physical length contraction though, then there is a possibility that we can find the preferred frame. My paper, now available from the link in the OP, goes into all the gory details.

*A joke. I watched the hot dog eating contest, and the build up to the event is always as over-the-top as they can make it. It is hilarious. They have the champion from Major League Eating ride in being carried by human bearers. At one point in the introduction they mention how he is the one man who knows truth.

edit on 6-7-2017 by delbertlarson because: Added the video of Joey Chestnut intro

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 07:43 PM
a reply to: delbertlarson

I don't totally follow all of your post

Simply saying, if one agrees that time dilation is real, then it automatically means that length contraction is also real. It's your OP title stating that there is no length contraction made me assume 'time dilation' can exist on it's own.

posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 05:43 AM
a reply to: greenreflections

Simply saying, if one agrees that time dilation is real, then it automatically means that length contraction is also real.

My work has shown otherwise. Lorentz derived transformation equations assuming ad hoc proposals of time dilation and length contraction. Einstein shows that the Lorentz transformations, time dilation and length contraction follow from his two postulates. I show in my Physics Essays paper (now available on InfoGalactic) that the Lorentz transformations can be derived from a single ad hoc proposal of time dilation (no ad hoc length contraction) provided those setting up the transformations incorrectly assume light is moving at a constant speed in their frame.

It's your OP title stating that there is no length contraction made me assume 'time dilation' can exist on it's own.

It is possible that time dilation, along with an incorrect assumption concerning the speed of light, is what is leading us to infer the Lorentz transformations. It is possible that length contraction does not exist; it has never been measured directly, only inferred.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 02:45 AM
a reply to: delbertlarson

Here is a simple question.

Can you derive magnetism from relative motion of charges using your theory?

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 07:57 AM

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: delbertlarson

Here is a simple question.

Can you derive magnetism from relative motion of charges using your theory?

What I have done is show how Maxwell's Equations are arrived at in different reference frames under a theory employing classical time dilation alone. Excerpting from my paper with slight modifications:

BEGIN MODIFIED EXCERPT

To determine the electric and magnetic fields in any frame experimentally, one can note the change in velocity of a moving small test charge and define the fields through the Lorentz force equation. Many test particles, with different velocities, can be used to obtain E and B, and such measurements will uniquely determine the electromagnetic fields.

Present (relativistic) electrodynamic theory assumes that Maxwell’s equations are obeyed in all frames. Calling one frame a preferred frame, and using the relativistic approach to transform the fields, the observed accelerations of test charges can be understood from either a preferred frame or an arbitrarily moving frame from the usual Lorentz transformations.

I assume Maxwell’s equations hold in the preferred frame, so accelerations caused by fields as evaluated in the preferred frame will be the same as under present theory. Since the kinematic transformation is also the same, accelerations observed in moving frames are also the same as in the present theory. (Accelerations are purely kinematic.) Since measurements of the fields rely solely on measurements of accelerations, the inferred transformation of the fields by moving observers is therefore the same as in the presently accepted theory.

END MODIFIED EXCERPT

There is more detail in the paper itself, including that all-important derivation of the Lorentz Transformations. Besides being reviewed at more than one journal, I also gave a talk about this while I was at the SSC. Several of the theorists there thought it interesting. Of course most didn't agree with the conclusions. But no one found anything wrong. I again went through it all as I prepared it for InfoGalactic and I am reasonably sure the arguments are all sound. However, I would always appreciate additional serious review.

To go to the InfoGalactic article, click here.

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 05:39 AM
I am planning to post my InfoGalactic Absolute Theory article to the main Wikipedia site. On Wikipedia, the Absolute Theory page is presently a stub requesting that it be fleshed out. In what follows on this post and the next I am copying the intro section of my InfoGalactic article here. I would appreciate any comments, and would be greatful for any errors found including typos and grammatical errors. Since Wikipedia is actually asking for content for their page, I am hopeful that some of what I post will be kept.

Thanks in advance for any comments! What follows is what I plan to post:

In physics, an absolute theory refers to a theory wherein space and time are absolute, as opposed to relative, concepts. Absolute theory was the prevailing theory of space and time during the age of Classical physics prior to Albert Einstein's special relativity. Whereas relativity mixes space and time together into a single concept of spacetime, absolute theory involves two separate and distinct concepts: absolute space and absolute time.

The concept of absolute space begins as an abstraction, i.e., absolute space is a general concept but it lacks the full specificity needed for it to be used in physics calculations. In the abstraction, absolute space can have a triply infinite set of instances, one for every possible three dimensional velocity. Once a specific velocity is chosen, that specific instance of absolute space is called a frame of reference.

After a frame of reference has been chosen for an absolute space there remains the freedom to choose multiple representations of it. The representations involve a choice of which coordinate system to use, which rotational angle is chosen for the axes within the coordinate system, which metric is chosen for measurements, and which point is chosen as the origin. (The origin is the one fixed point of reference for all of the surrounding space.) Examples of coordinate systems include a Cartesian coordinate system, a polar coordinate system, and a spherical coordinate system. Examples of distance metrics include the meter from the metric system or feet from the imperial system, while degrees or radians can be used as a metric of angle.

The concept of absolute time has far fewer attributes to specify than does absolute space. In absolute theory, time does not move with respect to space, nor can the axis of time be rotated. In absolute theory, time stands alone and is purely one-dimensional: it is the parameter that orders events. In absolute theory, a universal simultaneity is assumed, and provided that all observers have properly functioning measuring instruments they will all agree on what that universal simultaneity is. There is still some freedom to choose the origin of time (that point in time defined as t = 0) and there is also some freedom to determine the metric of time (such as seconds or minutes) but those are the only choices needed to arrive at a specific representation of absolute time.

Once we have defined an absolute time with an origin and a metric, and defined an absolute space with a frame of reference, a coordinate system, the angle of its axes, its metrics and its origin, we now have a specific representation (an instantiation of the abstractions) of absolute space and time. The specific representation includes a series of numerical values and associated units that allow us to do calculations for physical phenomena that occur within that space and time.

Intertwined with the concept of absolute space is the concept of an aether. An aether was one of the classical elements believed by ancient civilizations to comprise the world. By the late nineteenth century, after light had been observed to have wave-like properties, the ancient aether was extended to a concept of a luminiferous aether. Most known waves are caused by motion of some material body, and the luminiferous aether was proposed to be the underlying material body whose motions we observe as light.

There is an important distinction between the concept of an absolute space and the concept of a luminiferous aether. In its initial formulation absolute space is an abstraction, while the luminiferous aether is proposed to be a concrete physical object. The luminiferous aether occupies absolute space, but it is not the same as absolute space. Since absolute space is an abstraction, there is freedom to choose an absolute space that moves with respect to the luminiferous aether. However, since physical phenomena are determined by the physical object and not the abstraction, absolute theories involving the luminiferous aether generally choose a frame of reference wherein an absolute Euclidean space is at rest with respect to the aether; this choice of reference frame is called the preferred frame.

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 05:40 AM
In the late nineteenth century, certain experiments - most notably the Michelson–Morley experiment - posed a threat to classical concepts. To save the classical interpretation of a luminiferous aether, ad hoc concepts of length contraction and time dilation were proposed. The length contraction proposition, put forward by George Francis FitzGerald and Hendrik Lorentz, postulated that measuring sticks (and all other physical objects) will shrink as they move through the aether, although the only dimension that is affected is the dimension parallel to the object's velocity through the aether. The time dilation proposition, put forward by Joseph Larmor and Lorentz, was that clocks (and any objects that have phenomenon measurable by clocks) will slow as they move through the aether. Both length contraction and time dilation involved the quantity gamma = (1 - ß2)-1/2, where ß = V/C, C is the speed of light, and V is the velocity of the objects through the aether. In the case of length contraction, physical objects were theorized to become shorter as they moved through the aether by a factor of gamma, while for time dilation, clocks moving through the aether were theorized to run slower by a factor of gamma. Lorentz went on to combine both the length contraction and time dilation effects into a series of equations now known as the Lorentz Equations.

Physicists of the early twentieth century found the matter of length contraction and time dilation to be quite distasteful. The argument was put forth that physics should not require a redefinition of fundamental concepts just to explain the results of a single experiment. Additionally problematic was not just the need to redefine fundamental concepts, but to do so in such an ad hoc fashion. Why should a quantity as arbitrary as gamma = (1 - ß2)-1/2 enter into the fundamental concepts? It was Einstein's theory of relativity that provided an elegant solution to the dilemma presented by the Michelson-Morley results. With his two simple postulates, Einstein was able to derive the same transformation equations as had Lorentz, but without any ad hoc propositions. Additionally, Einstein's work led to a profound change in the understanding of time and space. In the early decades of the twentieth century, Einstein's relativity became the standard theory for spacetime and the earlier absolute theories were largely set aside.

Relativity introduced a completely different conceptual basis for space and time. In relativity, length and time intervals became relative. While the Lorentzian absolute theory takes the position that moving meter sticks shrink and moving clocks run slow, relativity treats each reference frame the same as any other. In relativity there is no "correct" (or preferred) reference frame. In Einstein's radically new approach, what is a spatial separation in one reference frame becomes both a spatial and a temporal separation in another. Essentially, time can become space and space can become time, depending simply upon one's motion. Furthermore, relativity teaches that simultaneity is no longer well established between spatially separated events. Simultaneity too becomes relative.

With the advent of general relativity, gravitation is also proposed to have an affect on time. In absolute theory no such effect occurs. Instead, absolute theory takes the position that clocks (any physical manifestation by which time is measured) will be affected by their gravitational environment but that time itself will not be.

During the 20th century an overwhelming consensus developed among scientists that relativity is a superior theory to the older absolute theory. Yet it remains the case that there is little or no actual experimental evidence to favor Einstein's relative space-time over the classical absolute theory. In fact certain experiments - those involving Bell's theorem - are most easily interpreted as being in favor of absolute theory over relativity. The choice of relative over absolute theory is predominantly philosophical; it is not a choice based on empirical evidence alone.

In addition to the classical absolute theory of Lorentz, there is another absolute theory which is based on a proposal of time dilation alone - no length contraction is required. The following content, which provides much further detail on Absolute Theories and the tests relevant to them, is from the paper: D.J. Larson (1994) "An Absolute Theory for the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Physics Essays, volume 7, No. 4, pp. 476-489. That paper is copyrighted by Physics Essays Publication (PEP), physicsessays.org... and it is reproduced below by permission granted from PEP.

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 05:16 PM
a reply to: delbertlarson

May I ask? What problem does your theory solve? How do you explain Apollo 15 experiment with hammer and feather? Both objects touchdown Moon's surface at the same time...Whatch that experiment video once more, when you have a minute..it's truly surreal.

cheers)
edit on 19-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 05:31 PM
a reply to: delbertlarson

time can become space and space can become time, depending simply upon one's motion.

I can argue that space and time describe one 'object' - space-time. I simply cannot agree that there are moments that space becomes time and then turns into space again...and to further complicate things, you add it's 'depending upon one's motion'.
Please eleborate on 'depending on one's motion' a little in connection to 'space becoming time'.

thank you

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:23 PM

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: delbertlarson

May I ask? What problem does your theory solve? How do you explain Apollo 15 experiment with hammer and feather? Both objects touchdown Moon's surface at the same time...Whatch that experiment video once more, when you have a minute..it's truly surreal.

Absolute theory enables an understanding of quantum entanglement experiments. Both my version and that of Lorentz accomplish that. I also propose some tests that can differentiate my theory from Einstein and Lorentz. Differentiating between Lorentz and Einstein is quite difficult. (Unless one considers the quantum entanglement or EPR tests. If you do, then relativity is ruled out experimentally, and very few are willing to accept that. So they say things like "non-local" or avoid an objective reality.)

The hammer and feather Apollo 15 experiment really is just simple gravity in the absence of wind resistance. There is no difference between special relativity, Lorentz, or me on that one.

I can argue that space and time describe one 'object' - space-time. I simply cannot agree that there are moments that space becomes time and then turns into space again...and to further complicate things, you add it's 'depending upon one's motion'.
Please eleborate on 'depending on one's motion' a little in connection to 'space becoming time'.

In standard special relativity observer A will disagree with observer B about the simultaneity of spatially separated events if A is moving with respect to B. This is a well known result of the theory. What this means is that if there are two events 1 and 2 that occur at the same time as far as A is concerned, that for B 1 will not occur at the same time as 2. 'A' views the separation as just a length difference, but 'B' views the separation as both a length difference and a time difference. It is in that sense that space (to A) has become both time and space (to B).

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 09:12 PM
a reply to: delbertlarson

The concept of length contraction would be either due to literal optical illusion (A), or the material of said length actually contracting (B).

(A) would be, if you were watching a reflective object traveling across your view at 100 mph, the photons bounce off the tail of the object and the nose of the object (and everywhere between the nose and tail) and are relayed to your eyes, and this gives you a visual of length. If the object was traveling hypothetically, theoretically, 100000 mph, maybe the photons bouncing off the nose and tail (and middle) as you turned your head tracking the moving object, it would appear as the objects length was shorter than the 100 mph trial?

(B) would be like, objects are composed of atoms and molecules, so traveling 100 mph compared 100000 mph maybe the atoms would literally compress, like the difference between an uncompressed slinky, and one compacted.

The idea of time dilation is the idea of comparing relative velocities? You have 100 yard football field: 2 robots. both equipped with the same tires and engines and parts and everything, except when one is turned on it travels straight and can only travel .01 mph. The other when turned on travels straight and can only travel 100 mph when its turned on.

You turn both on. 100 mph quickly crosses to the other end, while .01 mph is still slowly chugging along.

The amount of time that has occurred is less in the case of 100 mph than .01 mph. (more events in the world occurred. 100 mph was waiting at the finish line, grabbing a beer with friends, it experienced an equal space, it crossed an equal space in much less time. Due to its velocity its experience of time was dilated.

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 05:23 PM
a reply to: delbertlarson

The hammer and feather Apollo 15 experiment really is just simple gravity in the absence of wind resistance.

Simple gravity alright. But does your theory addresses why once inside massive gravity affected area, objects have same 'free fall' rate regardless of their mass, size and composition?

cheers)

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:26 AM
a reply to: greenreflections

When dealing with absolute theory, either the classical version of Lorentz or my close alternative, gravity is not considered. Special relativity does not consider gravity either.

posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 06:08 PM
a reply to: delbertlarson

I just realized, my posts went outside OP question of discussion.

cheers)

top topics

10