This presentation is dedicated to the concept of:

***The Absolute Reference Frame***


by Gerald L. O'Barr

21 May 1997

     Please feel free, for your personal use only, to copy and
enjoy all that I have and might "originated" on these pages.
But no material of any form from this presentation can be sold
without written permission.  For what others might originate in
this presentation, that must be between you and them.
     I feel that what I am able to write has freely come from
God: Therefore, it is freely given to all, to us, His children,
and given with joy.  Please treat these things with great care
and kindness, for my benefit and for yours.
     Special thanks are given to my son, Dr. Stephen A. O'Barr,
([email protected]), who knew how, and was willing and kind
enough, to put all these things in motion.
     This presentation is intended to be "scientifically
correct."  If any errors are observed, please, immediately, send
or E-mail me your corrections.  Unless specifically stated
otherwise, I will assume that all materials sent to me can be
used in this or in any other presentation. (21 & 22 May97)

                                        Thanks!!!

T
his page was initiated 21 May 1997. All present inputs (and all future additions and/or corrections) will be dated. (21May97)

T
oday, it is generally said that there is no absolute reference frame. Even worse, it is often said that the theory of relativity precludes the possibility of there being an absolute reference frame. All concepts of an ether appears dead. It is my intent and hope to change all this. I predict that by the year 2001, all respected scientists will know of and accept the concept of an absolute reference frame. (21May97)

The contents of this presentation are as follows: (31May97)

Appendixes:

You may hyper-link to each chapter or appendix. (31May97)

***********************************************

I.....General Introduction....(21May97)

******* Prologue --- The Title! *******

T
his presentation is titled, "The Absolute Reference Frame." This is not an inappropriate title. But it might have been more honest to have titled this, "The At Theory." A basic introduction of "The At Theory" is included in this presentation (See Home Page.) But who knows what the At Theory is? And who would care? I do know that some people have heard of Special Relativity, and some of these are familiar with absolute reference frame concepts. Therefore, I have picked this title because it might get some attention, and because it needs attention, and I believe that this title will do much good, but my final goal is to get attention to the At Theory.
W
hat is the At Theory? The best way to answer this is to ask, "What is the Atomic Theory of Matter?" The "Atomic Theory of Matter" is the base of almost all modern physics. It is not often thought of nowadays, mainly because it has been so successful and so fully incorporated into all of our physics that it is automatic included in every thing we do. We no longer have to think about it. When we think of the pressure in our tires, we might think about Pv = nRT, but we seldom think about the atomic theory and how it explains Pv = nRT, and everything else.
W
ell, the At Theory is the Atomic Theory, but it is the complete theory. The Atomic Theory states that all matter consists of particles, and interact by simple collisions, but in the Atomic Theory, all collisions contain only one solution. Mathematically, collisions are quadratics, and quadratics, in general, contain two solution sets, not just one. The At Theory specifically contains both solution sets, specifically the one where the "incoming" particle leaves in the same direction it had before the collision occurred.
W
hy is this important? The Atomic Theory of Matter allows forces that pushes, such as pressure forces, but it cannot explain attractive forces, such as gravity. By going into the other solution set, attractive forces (actually all forces) become accessible to our Newtonian physics. By going into the other solution set, the characteristics needed for an ether field comes before our very eyes. By going into the other solution set, we have quantum mechanical characteristics that occur automatically. They cannot be escaped! We have progress! (21May97)

******* End of Prologue ******* 

PRE-INTRODUCTION

     What is about to occur over the next few years, right here
on the internet, is extremely important.  Things of such
importance usually are introduced with a high degree of fanfare.
Many things could be said to introduce this presentation.  But
there will be more than enough time for such things.  What is
most important right now is the need for progress.
     The time has come for us to change some of our basic views
of relativity.  The cause or need for this change is many:
1)  Our scientific advancements have been great: The greatest
that has ever been seen.  Yet, since relativity was introduced
early this century, and Quantum Mechanics was established over
this same general time period, these basic developments have
remained completely stagnated in terms of our understanding of
their origins.  It is much like gravity:  We know much about
gravity, but we have never actually seen gravitons or any other
direct cause or explanation.  We need to know these things, and
yet they are not being found.  One reason why things are not
found is often because we are doing or thinking something that is
wrong.
2)   The "paradox of the twins" now appears validated.  This is
most serious.  If two identical clocks, which can at no time have
different relative velocities between them (being just two), if
they can really develop real time differences between them, then
the theory that all velocities are totally relative has been
completely broken.
3)   If real time differences do occur between identical clocks,
of the exact mathematical form presently accepted, then real
changes in lengths of rulers must also occur.
4)   If real changes are occurring, then causes for these changes
must be found.  Causes are not usually relative if the results
are exact and absolute.
     To change our views of relativity will not be easy.  There
are many obvious reasons why it will be difficult.  Relativity
has become a religion.  It is worshipped.  Relativity, even
though it is worshipped, is not well understood.  In general,
math nowadays is not well managed by most.  It is difficult to
discuss the requirements of math when emotions and opinions seem
so much more important.
     The following approach can be considered:
1)  First, we must have a clear understanding that all possible
absolute reference frames have not been precluded by experiments
nor by the mathematics of relativity.  We must therefore put an
end to these false claims that it is impossible to have an
absolute reference.  If anyone continues to maintain such, they
ought to be immediately corrected.
2)  Second, an absolute reference is not only possible, but can
account for or produce everything that is presently observed. 3)
Third, we must understand that relativity, as presently taught,
does produce real paradoxes.  Relativity cannot be mentally
understood without an absolute reference.
4)  Physics is more than just the mathematics.  Understanding the
math is important, but understand why the math applies is also
important.

     Now it might be dangerous to claim that every point above
must be exactly correct or that each point depends upon each and
every other point.  This might be asking too much at this
particular time.  But let us just assume that some of these
points might be true.  Let us give to them enough of a
possibility to at least read this presentation and see where it
might lead us.  The presentation will not follow exactly the
suggested outline above.  What will be seen will actually be a
series of articles that were originally independently written.
Therefore, many thoughts are repeated and do not truly follow
each other in a logical fashion.  But taken collectively, I
believe that they fulfill every one of these points. (21May97)
***END OF PRE-INTRODUCTION***

I...General Introduction (Continued)...(21May97)

T
here are several things that must be said or explained! First, only Special Relativity (SR) is being addressed. Too much should not be made of this, since SR is fully and completely General Relativity in the space where it applies. In no way do I intend to disprove the mathematics of Relativity. I believe that relativity is mathematically sound and correct. I am going much deeper than just the mathematics: I believe that we must change our understanding of the theory, not the results.
A
lmost all will immediately say, "Absolute reference frames cannot work! They are totally incompatible with relativity and they just will not work! Testing proves they do not exist!"
H
ow quickly we forget! Relativity was actually developed under an absolute frame concept. All the math was developed as if you were in an absolute frame where all clocks fixed in that frame were set with zero simultaneity, where photons all move at c, and all time events of photons moving between two moving end points were assumed to be a function of the distance between those end points divided by the relative velocity between the photons and the moving points, fully following Newtonian relationships in every particular. Therefore, any who say that relativity is not compatible with an absolute reference frame do not even remember correctly history, let alone understand the math of relativity. Additional comments will be found in chapter III.
I
believe that we will all soon accept an absolute reference frame concept. Not only this, we will soon be able to measure our absolute velocity. I believe that we already have the means of directly measuring our absolute velocity to about an accuracy of .1 c. This can be done by using a rotating bar.
T
he bar's rotation axis is the axis along its length. Such a rotating bar is interesting because its rotation makes it into a clock (you can even paint a hand of a clock on its two end faces), but the width of the hand of this clock is very wide: as wide as the bar is long. The interesting thing is that being a single bar, it is a single clock, but its length is such that the simultaneity at one end of this clock would be different than the simultaneity at the other end if a velocity is established along its length as it is rotating.
T
he question of questions is, how can the simultaneity of this one single clock have two values at the same time? It can have different simultaneities if it twists as it moves and rotates. But is the twist the exact right amount of twist for the exact simultaneities required? The calculations I have made show that for small rates of spins, the maximum twist possible (is there any reasons to have any twist?) is only about half of that required to meet full simultaneity requirements. If there is any deviations at all from a full twist, then we have found a way to measure our absolute velocity.
W
hether this or some other way ever proves possible, it would certainly make it easy to convince everyone that we have an absolute reference frame. But with or without this, we can still understand all we need to understand about the absolute reference frame. We will accept it as soon as we allow ourselves to give it the thought that it deserves. (21May97)

*****END OF GENERAL INTRODUCTION*****

II....Limits to mathematical manipulations...(21May97)

T
ake two inertial reference systems using identical measurement tools (identical when compared while superimposed at relative rest to each other) and one photon, all moving through free space along a common inertial reference line. The Special Theory of Relativity (SR) allows (requires) the inertial reference systems to each measure the identical relative velocity with respect to the photon irrespective of any relative velocity which might exist between the two reference systems. This "unbelievable" consistency in the relative velocity measurement of this photon from relatively moving reference systems is accomplished by manipulations of the local clock simultaneity times and changes in the magnitude of the units of distances and times within each of these reference systems.
T
here are limits, however, to which mathematical manipulations can be taken. For example, if one inertial reference system and two photons were moving along this same line, there are no manipulations that could allow identical relative velocities to be measured by the inertial reference system with the two photons, if relative velocities between the two photons were allowed. Thus, if two photons are moving upon a fixed inertial line with the same relative velocity as measured within any one inertial reference system, the two photons must indeed be moving through space at exactly the same rate.
T
his relationship can be made even more general. All physically meaningful transformations normally require adjoining single points to transform into adjoining single points. If at the same time, place and direction within an inertial reference system, any two objects have the same measured relative velocity, then these two objects must also be moving through space exactly alike. This relationship stands independent of all normal mathematical transformations, measurement methods, or choices of reference systems.
T
o the extent that we can simultaneously duplicate these relationships upon lines passing through any and all points and in any and all directions, and find the relative velocities for all photons along each line to always be identical, and with the common assumed isotropy of space, it is with some force of necessity that it be stated that all photons move through space in some kind of absolute relationship. This conclusion is more basic than just the formulation of the theory of relativity.
I
n the presentation of the Special Theory of Relativity, the distinction between the "absolute constant motion of light," and the fact that the magnitude of the measured relative velocity of light is a constant, is not made clear. The fact that the magnitude of the measured relative velocity of light is a constant is important, but it is not the same as saying that all photons move with identical motions through space. It is this "absoluteness of the motion" that makes it mathematically possible for the measured velocities to be a constant. This relationship should not and cannot be ignored.

O
ut of hundreds who have read the above, not one has understood what was being said. And yet, one cannot truly understand relativity without understanding this page. Simply, this is about mathematics. Mathematics is simple and it is absolute. Nothing can escape its power. Relativity is mathematical. Therefore, relativity must be simple, and understandable, and limited, just as all other mathematical subjects.
I
n Special Relativity, there are three variables, and only three, that are present and allowed: The distance between end points of each ruler, the time between the ticks of each clock, and the time differences between the clocks (this is their simultaneity.) With these three variables, one can easily allow one absolute velocity (such as the speed of light) to be a constant. But mathematically, this is all that can be done. If you make one velocity a constant, then you have lost the mathematical power to make any other velocity a constant. It is the end of the power of your mathematics.
T
herefore, relativity mathematically has the power to make "c" a constant, but it cannot do more. No one has the right to "mystify" relativity. It has no more power to do more than any other mathematical subject. Those who try to imagine mysterious power or action to any of this are either being deceitful or they are just plain ignorant.
L
et me say it again. Special Relativity is mathematically simple. It allows one simple absolute relationship which produces one constant velocity measurement. It does not do more than this. This is all that it does. It therefore is simple and directly understandable on this level, and our understanding does not have to go further than this to totally understand all that it does.
A
nyone who tries to do more with relativity than this simple absolute accomplishment are being deceitful or have not been educated in math. It seems clear that we are not educating people very well these days, and we need to change our education process.
L
et us reread, and continue to reread this page, until the light dawns. This page is really simple, and it is important. The concept on this page must be appreciated if relativity is to be appreciated. It is that simple.
I
t might be a crime to not understand relativity: It certainly is a crime, a far greater crime, to make more out of relativity than what it is. Not understanding relativity is easily forgivable, to "mystify" it is not forgivable. It is time to stop the playing of games that so called educated people have been doing to those who might be less educated.
O
f course it is always dangerous to criticize. On this very page, I am "making a sell" and can easily be criticized. Of course relativity does many things - not just the one thing that I mention. But this does not in any way invalidate the important point being made. We must come to a more complete mathematical understanding of relativity.

III....What absolute reference frames have been disproved? (21May97)

T
his is a fair question. Wasn't an absolute reference frame disproved by the Michelson-Moreley experiment? Yes! An absolute reference frame was disproved. (Maybe even more than one.) But what must be clearly established and understood is that there have been only very particular types of absolute reference frames that have been disproved.
A
t one time, the absolute reference that was thought to exist was a reference in which rulers were fixed and absolute in their lengths. Rulers did not change their lengths whether they were fixed or moving through space. And in this absolute reference, time, even time as represented by clocks, was also absolute. Clocks did not change the rate at which they ticked whether they were fixed or were moving through space. This absolute reference in which rulers and clocks are absolute has certainly been proved not to exist. But there are certain types of absolute reference systems that have not been tested and are not disproved.
N
o thinking person can state anything different.
T
o say that we cannot measure our absolute reference is wrong. Everything that is measured is an absolute measurement. The problem is not that we can not make these measurements. The problem is we cannot make distinctions between absolute measurements and relative measurements. Not being able to distinguish them does not make anything disappear. What a terrible jump in logic. Our inability to make a distinction between absolute and relative measurements does not cause the absolute reference to cease to exist.

IV....Special Relativity is a Measurement Science...(21May97)

S
pecial Relativity (SR) is simple. It is simple in its mathematics. It is simple in its results. But it is not always simple to understand. In fact, it is my belief that no one, as yet, fully understands relativity. This understanding is important and we will have to understand relativity before we can make any further meaningful progress.
T
o me, the first thing to understand about SR is that it has very little physics. In fact, it ought to even be said that SR is not physics. We certainly must recognize that relativity does not provide us with all the physics we need to understand it.
S
pecial Relativity is mainly a measurement science. It tells us how to make our measurements. We must work within one or more inertial reference frames. We must use ruler grids within these frames. We must set up local clocks along these grids. We must synchronize these clocks in a particular way. The measurements made with these tools, used in the right way, will then give us the results as predicted by relativity. And what are the results predicted by relativity: The measured lengths of rulers and the measured rates of clocks will change with their relative velocities.
P
lease note, relativity at no time tells us why any of this is true, or even if any changes actually occur. Relativity does not tell us that dimensions actually change with velocity, or clocks change their rates. In fact, relativity does not state anything about what actually happens. It only tells us what is measured. Since the tools that are used in relativity appear to be able to change in their properties, then the results obtained in measurements using these tools might be a combination of real changes on top of the changes in the tools. To have real physics, we must know both. The physics must know what real changes occur in the thing being measured and the changes in the tools. Just knowing the final readings on changeable tools does not tell us the full story. Again, there is almost no physics in SR. It is only a measurement science. It only tells us final measurement results. It never tells us what actually happens.
N
ow of course a measurement science is important. No advancement can be made without a valid measurement system. But a measurement system is not necessarily the physics. The physics in SR is really very minimal, and this point should not be unappreciated or underrated.

V....The Physics of Our Absolute Reference. ..(21May97)

T
he absolute frame of reference is not a new subject. Before relativity, and even during the early days of relativity, it was given a great deal of consideration. Today, however, it is no longer considered to be a scientific subject. The Theory of Relativity is assumed to have "answered" this problem in that no absolute reference frame appears to be necessary, and so it is no longer of a scientific concern. Any reference frame appears to be equal to any other reference frame, and so it is felt that there is no longer any meaning to the concept of an absolute reference. This is all true, but it is true only on a mathematical level. On the physical level, there can only be one reference frame upon which all things are controlled or governed
I
t must be made clear that there was no proof that there was no absolute frame, the situation was only that there was no proof that there was one. It only disproved the particular type of absolute reference frame for which they were looking. Therefore, to find or assume that there is an absolute reference frame would not really change any known data or scientific experiment if, for example, the absolute reference frame perfectly mimicked the presently assumed changes in rates of clocks and lengths of rulers.
F
or some time, some individuals were of a mind to believe that no real changes in lengths of rulers and rates of clocks occurred. They were only "tricks" being played on us. However, I believe that we now have proof that there are real changes that occur. This information is found in the "paradox of the twins." (See appendix E for more information on this paradox.)
T
his "paradox" is now stated to be true, and if true, it becomes a real paradox. It proves, for its particular situation, that velocity is not always totally relative and it proves that real changes occur with clocks, changes which are different for one clock than another even when they have identical, relative velocities. If real changes occur with clocks, then real changes must also occur with rulers. If clocks or rulers are really changing, it becomes imperative that a cause be sought for these changes, not only to account for these changes, but why these changes can be different for clocks that have identical, relative velocities.
T
o be very clear, the paradox of the twins does not in any way disprove relativity, it in fact proves relativity since it was relativity that predicted this paradox. What the paradox of the twins does is prove that relativity requires an absolute reference frame in order for it to physically work.
T
o repeat: The normal assumption assumed by most people is that relativity requires all velocity to be totally relative. We now have data that shows that velocity is not always relative for all situations.
W
ell, what is the physics? The physics is as simple as relativity itself. There is an absolute reference frame. In this absolute reference frame, the length, L, of all rulers, in the direction of their velocity, changes with their absolute velocity, v. The ratio of this length, L, with respect to the length at absolute rest, Lo, is:

( 1 - v^2/c^2) ^.5

H
ere, c is the velocity of light in the absolute frame. The rates of all clocks follow this same ratio.
T
his is it. This is all the physics that is needed.
B
ut one might be tempted to say that this is no different than the relativity now taught. But no. This understanding of relativity clearly and directly separates out real changes from that which is measured. At no time is anyone confused as to which clock slows down, and as to which one does not. For the paradox of the twins, there is never a question as to which twin gets old, and why. All questions immediately disappear. There are no more paradoxes for any known problem.
A
ll of this is important, important enough to consider this scary re-introduction of an absolute reference frame. In this absolute reference frame, any moving inertia reference frame can set up a measurement system of rulers and clocks that will measure exactly what relativity predicts. The speed of all photons, in this moving frame, will be measured to be exactly c. It will do this not because that is the real velocity, but because it will be the measured velocity. It will happen because the rulers and clocks that are being used in this moving frame will have changed sufficiently to exactly cancel out all components of the absolute velocity.
K
nowing all this, we immediately see that there are no time problems. No one can go backwards or forward in time. Any of these affects are merely changes in the settings of clocks as they are readjusted to meet simultaneity requirements for certain situations. By keeping track of real changes verses measured changes, we never see any real loss of time or continuity. for all you space nuts, I am sorry. All you "back in time" travel nuts are left with absolutely nothing.
I
am sure that all this is simple enough that everyone should understand it. Still, no one probably will believe it. But it does work. The At theory provides the explanation as to what this absolute frame consists of, and how it allows particles to appear to move through space without hinderance. I encourage all to study the At theory. It also is simple. It merely uses the second set of solutions to the collision equations, where changes in mass can be experienced in a Newtonian way.
T
his allows the introduction of a new variable, a non-linear variable at that, and with all this, the first introduction of attractive forces in a conservative system. Isn't this all great? How could anyone not want to see all this work?

VI....THE PARADOX OF THE TWINS...(21May97)

W
hat is this paradox? Simply stated, you take two twins who are exactly the same age. One is sent on a very fast trip to a distant point, and as soon as he arrives at this point he returns home. When he returns, he will be biologically younger than the twin who remained at home. (Appendix E gives some of the mathematics of this age difference.)
W
hat is the paradox? In special relativity, the biological age, the rate of the "local" clock of a person, must be independent of the motions of all other objects. It is acceptable that if an object moved relative to another, that they might each see the other's clock change in their rates, but if every thing is relative, if their velocities are truly relative, then the changes in rates that they each observe must be identical.
W
hen only two objects are involved, such as would be for two twins, then the relative velocity of one twin will always be the exact same magnitude as the other. This relationship is absolute. Therefore, if velocities are truly relative, and the rates of clocks are dependent only on these relative velocities, then the rates of their clocks cannot deviate under any condition, and their ages can never differ. Yet, the mathematics show that their ages will differ, and this has in fact been found to be true.
S
omething must give. You cannot continue to say that velocity, and thus time, are totally relative, and yet have twins who do not remain the same years of age.

HOW DOES PRESENT SCIENCE EXPLAIN THIS PARADOX?

H
istorically, this problem has been considered many times. Many claimed that this was not a special relativity problem, and the real answer would be found in General Relativity. Of course, none of these people could explained it by General Relativity. It was only a hope that it would eventually be explained. This was now been fully discredited. Some claimed that the end points, where acceleration is present, would provide the answer.
A
gain, it has been shown that this provides no solution. Every attempt to explain this paradox has failed. Today it is simply accepted as a paradox and, apparently, not to be understood by man. It is no longer worried about. But we cannot hide our heads in the sand and ignore what is obvious. It is a true paradox: there is something that is amiss in our assumptions or in our understanding that should be answered.

THE ANSWER.

I
n the absolute reference frame concept, the answer is clear. If these two twins start out at rest in the absolute reference frame, it is obvious that the twin that made the trip would age less than the one who stayed at absolute rest. But to speak more generally, the two twins can start out in any moving frame. The twin who "remains at home" merely keeps a constant absolute velocity. The twin that moves out to some distant point, may either increase his absolute velocity, or stay the same, or even decrease his absolute velocity, it would totally depend on the original absolute motion of his original reference frame and in the direction and magnitude he takes relative to that original motion.
T
he point that can be made, however, is that no matter what these original relationships might be, in either the outgoing trip, or in the return trip, in one or the other or both, the twin who "makes the trip," in at least one of these legs of his trip, has to have a faster absolute velocity than the twin that does not make the trip. Any quick mathematical check will show, because of the non-linearity of the clock rate function, that that twin will be younger than the one that did not change his velocity. The absolute "math" is the exact same as the non- absolute math, but now we have intellectual understanding of why it occurs. It is important to make our mathematical facts match with our intellectual understandings.
T
o restate the logic or proof one more time: In the relativity where velocity is accepted to be purely relative, there are no fundamental explanations why one twin ages differently than the other. The math tells us which twin ages and the math tells us how much, but the "why" does not exist. When we consider an absolute reference, then and only then do we have a full answer. With the absolute reference, we know which twin ages, we know how much it ages, and we know why it is that twin and not the other. The paradox has been totally removed.

VII.,,,The Ether,,,(21May97)

T
he ether field cannot be understood without understanding the At Theory and collisions based upon spalls. When all collisions are spalls, then there are none of the pressure forces and none of the pressure waves or direct momentum changing impacts that changes the motions of particles as we expect or experience in normal "gases." This does not mean that none of these effects are present, only that their effects are on an entirely different level. The primary effects are dynamic effects, and the ether has true power, but only in certain second order type effects. Most large forces are caused by exchanges of large particles, not just by the smaller, non-descript particles that make up the primary ether.
I
cannot give a full or specific description of the ether, but it is much the same as with the Atomic Theory of matter: one does not have to have any specific description to a gas (it could be an oxygen gas or steam or hydrogen or almost any specific gas), the Atomic Theory will still require or produce a basic Pv = nRT response or result. It is exactly the same with the At Theory. Just because we might not yet know any of the details of any of the Ats, we know exactly what general laws will be found and experienced.
T
herefore, I am not being too far from the mark in saying that we can now understand the ether. As the At Theory is presented, you will be seeing the full mechanics and the basic force mechanisms that are at work in the ether.

VIII,,, Conclusion. ,,, (21May97)

T
here is an absolute reference frame. In hindsight, it is necessary that there is a reference upon which the motions of all photons are based. It is necessary to have a reference upon which the lengths of all rulers are based. It is necessary to have a reference upon which the rates of all clocks are governed. To believe in anything else is to believe in some kind of impossible inter-relationship that occurs by no possible means. It would be mindless to not consider the absolute reference approach.

Restatement of required assumptions:

L
et there be an absolute reference frame in which:

  • 1) All photons in free space, from any and all moving or stationary sources, have the absolute velocity, c.

  • 2) The lengths of all "rulers," in the direction of their 

                                                          1
                                                   2  -
                                                  v   2
absolute motion, v, contract by a ratio of  ( 1 - - )   .
                                                   2
                                                  c
    and

  • 3) The rates of all clocks are governed by the same ratio factor as the contraction of rulers.

I
f the above laws were followed, the physics would be exactly the same as in special relativity, both in the absolute frame, and in all inertial frames within it. This assumes. of course, that each inertial frame sets up a ruler grid and uses local clocks and synchronize these clocks as required by the rules of relativity.
I
s there anything hard to accept in the above set of assumptions? No! They are essentially the assumptions that we already make. In the absolute frame, we just assign these functions to be governed by one reference frame only. The number of functions and the nature of these function remain identical. Therefore, no real problems are introduced by assuming that an absolute reference exists.
I
n terms of the math, the above equations are not the only possible choices, but so far the results of the tests that have been made do not yet suggest changing any of these original choices.
W
hat must we change with how present relativity is taught? Very little, if anything. It might be wise to always state that in relativity, measurements only are being made. Thus, after stating the absolute velocity, lengths and rates that occur in the absolute frame, one would then state:

T
he *measured* velocity of light, in all inertial reference frames, is the constant, c.

T
he *measured* lengths of rulers and the *measured* rates of clocks follow the standard relativistic relationships.

W
hen we are careful to recognize that SR is a measurement science, and that only the measurements are giving us these "impossible" results, then we can begin to feel good about what appears to be happening. It does become simple, both in the math, and in the understanding of the results. We then become free to address the cause of all these interesting things, and we can begin again to do real physics.

*****End of this section ***********

Back to Table of Contents

As of 6/1/97

1
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws