Original content in Relativity Trail, book by Roger Luebeck 03/09/2024 note. Einstein gets halfway there: In February 2024, during the process of researching a definition for use in my article, I stumbled upon an obscure lecture delivered by Einstein at Leyden in 1920. I learned, by way of reading the transcript of that lecture, that Einstein had by that time (fifteen years after his 1905 paper on relativity) come around to thinking about the nature of space as it relates to special relativity. Specifically, he forcefully argued that there is necessarily an underlying frame of reference for the effects of special relativity, i.e., a structure of space which imparts physical properties and provides "standards for space and time, [specifically] our measuring-rods and clocks". He stated: "Space without ether is unthinkable" and "the ether has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia". That is in sharp contrast to his original treatment, in which he had simply disregarded the nature of space. Having spent my entire adult life searching the literature for anyone other than myself who has understood and articulated why that background (call it ether or the totality of the cosmos) is not merely an option when it comes to explaining the effects of relativity, it seems safe to say that only Einstein himself rose to the task. Poincare, Lorentz and Fitzgerald did not come close. They did not understand or articulate the inherent contradiction in the spacetime model, with its reliance on Einstein's strictly utilitarian clock synchronization and lattice of clocks methodology -- which vacate the underlying reality and impose a circular definition of inertial frame. Nor did they offer natural postulates, define time-keeping, or diagram symmetry of measure. Einstein partially rose to the task. He never did go back and rework special relativity in absolute terms with new postulates. [1] That fell to poor me alone. It was a task I never wanted or felt I should have to do. I did it in 2008. It's my book Relativity Trail, which I sell at the U of M. You can read what Einstein said in my article. Take the challenge. It's a short read. The link: Symmetry of measure and the time-keeping differential ----------------------------------------------------- Meanwhile: Original content in Relativity Trail ------------------------------------ * The time-keeping differential between reunited clocks, which necessarily favors one party over the other, serves as proof of an absolute (though experimentally indiscernible) frame of reference. i.e. there is a "truth of the matter". * Spacetime is a geometrical construct, dependent on Einstein's clock synchronization method. It comes up short in representing physical reality, as it describes an impossibly sudden time gap upon a change in inertial motion. * Einstein's clock sychronization is diagrammed in absolute terms. * The ramifications of Einstein's two versions of his second postulate are analyzed and diagrammed. See: pages 76-77 * It is shown that the elimination of a universal (absolute) frame of reference leaves us with a circular definition of inertial frame, and with an unresolvable twins paradox of one's own making. See: page 25 * Mach's Principle is shown to apply to a hierarchy of inertial motion. * Actual constancy of light-speed is given a basis in the interchangeability of matter and energy. * Clock functioning (time-keeping) is defined. * A basis is (trivially) provided for the equivalence of clock functioning and biological aging. * The Principle of Relativity is properly considered to be inextricably bound with synchronization of motion along different axes. * Length contraction is given a Machian basis and is formally derived. * Symmetry of measuring across inertial frames is diagrammed in absolute terms. * Constancy of light-speed measure, independent of inertial frame, is diagrammed in absolute terms. * The twins paradox is trivially dispensed with. * The indeterminacy of one's motion relative to the universe is demonstrated. * Einstein's mu and lambda are explained and derived in absolute terms. * The symmetrical measure of inelastic collisions, with transfer of mass, is diagrammed in absolute terms. * E = mc^2 is derived from an absolute basis. * Complexity gives rise to the meaningfulness of inertial properties and to the effects of relativity as we experience them. Emergence applies. * "Simple universe" twins paradoxes are debunked. * (And, of course, much more.) Phrases/terminologies originated in Relativity Trail include: Time differential between reunited clocks Inertial properties Hierarchy of clock rates Heirarchy of inertial motion From light's perspective, it is everywhere at once. From page 86 of Relativity Trail: Let's examine Einstein's assignment of tA - tB = tB - t'A in the context of the universal frame. Consider the following situation in the context of the universal frame:Clock B is in the positive direction of the AB motion from clock A, the AB system has an absolute velocity of 0.6, and A and B have a rest spatial separation of 1 ls (0.8 contracted) as seen against the universal reference frame. Einstein's definition of what constitutes a synchronization of those two clocks dictates that B's reading will be 0.6 second less than A's reading as seen against the universal frame, 0.6 being the velocity of AB. See the appendix for my (quite long) formal derivation of this. Keep in mind that Einstein had no awareness of this superimposition onto the universal frame, and thus no awareness of these numerical values. This superimposition diagram is unique to Relativity Trail. You won't find it elsewhere. Using this convention (the assignment of tA - tB = tB - t'A) amounts to a disregard of an analytical incorporation of an absolute frame of reference. It is in keeping with Einstein's notion of simultaneity, wherein he elevates a direct observation of distant events to a pseudo-reality of simultaneity, or lack thereof, for a given observer.
1. Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity), which reduces to flat space (or spacetime) in a region virtually absent of a gravitational field, does depend on a baseline for gravitational clock-slowing, with a clock in a region free of gravity having the fastest non-kinematical rate. Thus, any non-kinematical clock-rate difference between two entities is considered an actuality, rather than merely a measured effect between the two entities. Kinematical clock-rates in a gravity-free region, now considered a special case of general relativity, ought then also be considered an actuality (just as in the case of an absolute approach to special relativity). And if those clock-rates are real in a gravity-free region, they are real everywhere. To obtain a total (or net) clock-rate difference between two entities, one must combine the kinematical clock-rate difference with the non-kinematical. It would be nonsensical to consider that an actual difference (non-kinematical) could be combined with a difference that has no baseline (kinematical). Put another way -- it would be absurd to think that we're combining a non-kinematical clock-slowing in absolute terms with a kinematical clock-slowing that is merely a perception existing between two entities. And the combination of the non-kinematical effect over an interval and the kinematical effect over that interval in one's calculation does in fact agree with experimental evidence. Thus, both the non-kinematical and kinematical clock-rates are real, not simply a measured effect between two parties. In short, general relativity is logically consistent regarding clock-rates, whereas the typical interpretation of Einstein's 1905 treatment of special relativity -- along with Minkowski flat spacetime -- is logical fallacy regarding how a change of inertial motion affects kinematical clock-rates. Actual differences in clock- rates are not acknowledged, thus actual changes in clock-rates are not acknowledged.
© 2008, 2024 Roger Luebeck Updated 11/29/2025 See site map for all my articles. Home: relativitytrail.com