Absolute Time Theory
Author: Jones, BD
Abstract: The
theory briefly described herein differs from other spacetime theories in that
it leads to absolute universal time without any need for the notion of absolute
motion. Both simple and direct proofs
are included.
Keywords:
special relativity, absolute time, Einstein.
Known Fallacies of Special Relativity Theory (SRT)
Below are the six major SRTproponent fallacies, stated in their corrected formulations:
[1] The Lorentz viewpoint does not require an absolute frame. (That is, the fallacy here is the false belief by many SRTproponents that Lorentz's theory needs the absolute frame.)
[2] SRT has not passed the only experimental test that
matters, viz., and the timed oneway light speed experiment.
[3] Maxwell's equations were never related to the rods and
clocks of an inertial reference frame, and are therefore not required to take
on the same form in any or all frames of reference. (These equations relate
electrical and magnetic fields to each other, not to some reference frame's
clocks and rods. Indeed, Maxwell
himself, albeit unnecessarily, assumed an absolute rest frame for light's
supposedly needed medium. Maxwell never measured either the roundtrip,
oneclock speed of light, or the one way/twoclock speed of light. His
equations have nothing directly to do or say about either speed.)
[4] Unlike light's roundtrip speed, there is not any unique
measured value for light's oneway speed.
In other words, whereas it would proper to say, "the roundtrip
light speed law," we now should say only, "a oneway light speed
law," because the latter depends upon the way the two clocks have been
calibrated. In addition, there is more
than one way to do this.
[5] There is, however, only one physically correct value for
light's oneway speed, and that is the value that has been measured by
correctly calibrated clocks.
[6] Einstein's method for calibrating clocks (based upon his
definition of simultaneity which shall further discussed below) does not take
into account the simple fact that the frames have different velocities;
therefore, his clocks are incorrectly calibrated.
[7] SRT does not explicitly explain the physical results of any
experiment.
Proof that Einstein's
Clocks are Individually Calibrated Incorrectly
Given: A room in space with two adjacent light
sources on the lefthand wall aimed at two adjacent clocks located opposite the
sources on the righthand wall.
Setup: Light rays are simultaneously emitted from
sources on the lefthand wall and move toward the two adjacent clocks on the
righthand wall.
Facts:
Firstly, due to light's source independent nature, the two rays will
remain side by side. Second critical fact:
If one of these clocks moves away from the wall before the ray arrives,
it will be hit by the rays before the rays reach the wall, but the other clock
will not be hit by the rays until the rays reaches the wall.
Proposition:
Since this temporal difference will occur no matter when the ray was
emitted, we can say that the rays were emitted when the clocks were at the wall
(even though there is no way to prove this).
To be more specific, we can place each clock at point (x,0,0) in
an inertial reference frame. Let each
frame have a light source at its origin. This setup is pictured below:
(> = light ray)
> clock A
> clock B
<x in each frame>
Per our allowable assumption above, the two light rays start
when the two clocks are adjacent and equidistant from the light rays.
Thought Experiments:
As before, the two light rays will move sidebyside regardless of their
sources' different velocities. The following diagram shows what would happen next:
> clock A
> clock B
As in our room example, the clocks separate before the light
rays arrive, so the alwaysadjacent rays will reach one clock before the other.
We will apply Einstein's definition of "synchronization." If we let the light emission time (at the
adjacent origins) be zero in each frame, then Einstein's definition has both
clocks reading the same time x/c (c is the speed of light)
even though they are in fact started at different times.
The first step of Einstein's "synchronization"
process is pictured below:
> clock A starts & made to read
x/c
> clock B not yet started
As we said, Einstein's definition has clock B read this same
time x/c when it is started at a different time by the light
rays. These times are absolutely different because it is impossible for the
adjacent light rays to be in two places at the same time (all observers in all
frames seeing one clock being started by the rays when the other clock is not
at that specific location).
Analysis: Clearly, Einstein's method for calibrating clocks does not take
into account the simple fact that the frames have different velocities, which
of course means that the frames move differently relative to any passing
entity, including a light ray. We shall see later that Einstein chose to set his
clocks in a manner to cancel all frame motion relative to the light because he
believed that nature would otherwise never let us set them. For example, when
we try to use a simple clock transport to synchronize clocks, nature steps in
and sets then just asynchronously enough to produce oneway light speed
invariance and isotropy.
Conclusion: Any theory whose clocks are in various
frames are started at different times, but then made to read the same time, is
a theory whose clocks cannot be individually calibrated accurately.
Comments on Einstein's Definition Simultaneity
(a) Einstein's clocks can't measure any oneway
speed
correctly
(b) Einstein's clocks are not synchronous
Further explanation of (a): In our prior example, all observers in all frames agree that
the two clocks were started at different times, which we can label Ta and Tb
without knowing their actual values, but knowing only that they differ. Since
both origin clocks read zero at the start of the light rays' oneway trips, the
times Ta and Tb qualitatively represent the rays' different oneway travel
times with respect to the frames. Of
course, each ray traveled the same frame distance x. Therefore, the correct value of light's
oneway speed with respect to frame A is x/Ta, and the correct value of
light's oneway speed with respect to frame B is x/Tb. Additionally we
know that Einstein's theory incorrectly has all frames getting the same value with
respect to light's oneway speed.
Further explanation of (b): Clocks can be set per Einstein's definition by simply
starting them at zero by light rays that are simultaneously emitted midway
between the clocks. It is easy to prove
that the abovementioned (cancelledbyEinstein) frame movement relative to
light prevents Einstein's clocks from being synchronized in all frames but
one. The proof of this is shown in the
diagram below that shows three random frames A, B, and C using Einstein's
definition to calibrate their clocks (note:
<> represents two light rays moving in opposite directions):
clock A1 OXa<>XaO clock A2 (frame A)
clock B1 OXb<>XbO clock B2 (frame B)
clock C1 OXc<>XcO clock C2 (frame C)
When the six light rays are simultaneously emitted, clock
pairs A1 & A2, B1 & B2, and C1 & C2, are each equidistant from the
point of emission. We will assume that
this point is attached to frame A. We will also assume that the light ray pairs
move symmetrically about this Aframe emission point. Clearly, due to their
different velocities, all of the other frames' clock pairs cannot move
symmetrically about this emission point, and of course clock pairs symmetry is
synonymous with clock pair synchronization because the clockstarting signal
pairs are symmetrical. Obviously, a
clock that moves toward its signal will be started before a clock that is
moving away from its signal.
Additional Conclusion: Einstein's definition sets clocks asynchronously in all of the
frames but one.
Explanation:
Of course, the physical uniqueness of the one frame in which Einstein's
clocks are synchronous cannot be detected by using his clocks because they are
set to cancel out all differences in frame velocity such that all of the frames
get the same value for light's oneway speed.
However, if synchronous clocks were used, light's oneway speed would be
c only in that one unique frame which does not move with respect to
light.
It is only in this unique frame that Maxwell's equations can
apply. In other words, contrary to the
standard relativistic view, these equations are not meant to have the same form
in all frames, but rather only one frame, the frame that is at rest with
respect to light. Maxwell believed this frame to be the undetectable absolute
aether frame, but I have found that it is not necessary to assume an absolute
rest frame.
The solution is to assume that the unique frame is the one
that is at rest relative to the center of mass of the universe (UCM). However, it must quickly be added that there
is no need to assume an absolute motion state for the UCM.
The reason that we can get by without having an absolute
frame is simple; the three intrinsic distortions of the full Lorentz theory
(which must be taken into account when making any attempt to synchronize
clocks) are not related to some absolute frame but rather to light's speed
relative to the UCM, regardless of the latter's state of motion.
As promised earlier, I will now expound on Einstein's view
of time. Specifically, we will show that Einstein chose to set the clocks in a
manner to cancel all frame motion relative to light because he believed that
nature would never let us set them otherwise.
Einstein in Chapter VIII of his book Relativity
states, "It
has been suggested that we could absolutely determine the temporal separation
of two spatially separated events by simply using light rays from the events. At
first glance, it does seem that this would work because why shouldn't an
observer who is located midway between two events, and who sees the light rays
from them reach his eyes absolutely simultaneously, not be able to conclude
that the events themselves occurred absolutely simultaneously? However, upon
closer inspection, we uncover the following very serious problem: How we can be
sure that the light rays from the events traveled at truly equal speeds along
their equal paths? Clearly, we cannot do this unless we already had at our
disposal the means of measuring time, and since we do not have the means of measuring time, but
are in fact now looking for it, we are merely moving in a logical circle! And
the only way to break out of this circle is to merely stipulate 'equal' oneway
light 'speeds' in both directions. This definition can be applied to actual
clocks by sending out light rays (absolutely) simultaneously from the point
midway between the clocks, and then letting the clocks be started on zero by the
arriving light rays. Then, by definition, the occurrence times of two distant
events is to be judged by light rays from the events with the stipulation that
these light rays took a 'time' x/c to travel the frame distance x. Going back
to that logical circle, we were unable to simply assume truly equal oneway
light travel speeds relative to the observer because different frames move
differently with respect to any passing light ray. As my train/lightning flashes example showed, when my definition
of 'simultaneity' is applied, frame movement relative to the light rays from
the observed events causes observers in different frames to see these
'messenger' light rays arrive differently. Therefore, one observer may see the
rays arrive absolutely simultaneously, whereas the other observer may see them
arrive at absolutely different times. This is known as 'the relativity of
simultaneity.' It clearly says nothing about the actual occurrence times of the
events, but it does give us a consistent system, and it is probably the best we
can do without having the means of actually measuring time.”
Einstein explicitly admitted that he did not possess the
means for measuring time. He also explicitly stated that frames move
differently relative to approaching light rays which come from distant events.
He also said that this frame movement causes the relativity of simultaneity.
It's not that an event actually occurs at an infinite number of different times
or that two spatially separated events actually have an infinite number of
different temporal separations, but it is a fact that each frame moves
differently with respect to the light rays from events, and it's the fact that
Einstein's observers use the arrival times of these rays to be "the times
of the events with respect to my frame."
There can be no doubt that Einstein believed that light
actually moves at different oneway speeds in different directions. There can
therefore be no doubt that he believed that we could measure these different
speeds "if we ... had at our disposal the means of measuring time"
(his words). There can be no doubt that Einstein never had at his disposal the
means for measuring time.
Later in his book, Einstein declared that "the special
theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial
systems." However, this cannot be true because a theory whose clocks
cannot correctly measure time cannot yield correct results regarding spacetime
physics. What an amazing revelation
this is when much of science is time related.
Even in SRT, each frame is physically unique. For example, there's only one frame that does not move relative
to light. Returning to Einstein's roadblock (that "logical circle"), if Einstein had had
at his disposal the means of measuring time, then he would then measure light's
oneway speed in this particular frame to be the same in both directions. Moreover, the fact that Einstein did not
have at his disposal the means of measuring time did not do away with the
physical uniqueness of this frame. This unique frame exists today, as well as
all of the other unique frames for whom light's oneway speed is not only
different in different directions (in any given frame), but for whom light's
oneway speed differs from frame to frame (just as we saw above). Clocks can be started "The Einstein
way" (i.e., in accordance with his stipulation that light's twoclock,
oneway "speed" be "c" in all frames) by absolutely
simultaneously sending out light signals from the point midway between the
clocks, then letting the clocks start on zero.
As we know, the only way that these rays' actual oneway travel times
can be equal is if the frame (and its clocks) has no motion with respect to
these clockstarting light signals. In
other words, there is only one frame whose clocks will be started by absolute
simultaneity of the Einstein's clockstarting procedure. In other words, Einstein's clocks, in all
frames but one, are asynchronous.
Going back once more to Einstein's explicit admission that
he did not have at his disposal the means of measuring time, we might ask him
why he did not use the simple method of very slow clock transport to acquire
the missing means for measuring time. Unless a clock's atomic rhythm varies with
clock speed, two touching clocks which have been started at absolutely the same
time must remain (absolutely) synchronous even when one is moved away (as long
as there is negligible acceleration). In fact, all acceleration can be
eliminated by starting two clocks when they meet in passing while one of them
is moving inertially (with respect to the other) and then letting this moving
clock start a third clock in passing to match it, and with this third clock
always being at rest relative to the first.
This proves that Einstein believed in physical clock
slowing, where a clock's intrinsic or internal atomic rhythm varies with the
clock's speed. But what does the word
"speed" mean here? Remember
that a clock can have only one intrinsic atomic rhythm at a time, and yet it at
the same time can be moving at many different speeds relative to the other
frames. Therefore, the word "speed" in this context cannot mean
"speed relative to an inertial reference frame" (unless of course
that frame happened to be the only one which has no motion with respect to
light, and whose clocks are therefore synchronous even if they were started by
Einstein's process).
Therefore, the best way to define the word "speed"
as it was used above is to say that it is the clock's speed relative to the
universe's center of mass. That said,
leaves open the question as to whether the UCM is at absolute rest or not. Additionally, we shall see in more detail
below that this is a question we need not answer in order to have what we want…
which is that elusive creature known as the "means of measuring
time." Since we do not need to
assume that the UCM is at absolute rest, there is nothing wrong with using the
UCM as a background reference frame in this theory.
As we know, light rays traveling through "empty"
interstellar space can neither be slowed down nor speeded up (i.e., they cannot
be accelerated), and source movement through space does not affect light's
speed though space. Contrary to popular belief, the second postulate of relativity
theory says simply that light's propagation speed (i.e., its speed relative to
the UCM) is constant and should not be confused with invariant or isotropic
speed.
In his 1905 relativity paper, Einstein did not use the word
"postulate" when referring to light's oneway invariance and
isotropy. He instead called this statement, "a principle based upon a
definition, which was based upon a stipulation and that was based on past
experience."
Here are the only current predictions of SRT:
[1] Clocks cannot be synchronized.
[2] Whenever we try to synchronize clocks, nature will
always be able to not only prevent synchronization, but will also be able to
cause the clocks to be set in such a way that light's oneway speed, per these
clocks, is invariant and isotropic.
The phrase "past experience" above refers to the
fact that so far all clock synchronization proposals have not only failed, but
have also ended with clocks that yield oneway light speed invariance and
isotropy. A good example of this would be in the clock transport case.
At this point, it is necessary to show that Einstein
misunderstood the first postulate (the principle of relativity). This
principle, contrary to Einstein's opinion, neither calls for oneway light
speed invariance nor precludes oneway light speed variance with frame
velocity. Yes, the principle of relativity (PR) does call for the laws of
physics to be frame independent, but only experimentation can say what the laws
are. Therefore, the PR cannot be applied until at least one frame has obtained an experimental result.
The problem with light's oneway speed is that there are
many different oneway light speed experiments. Contrastingly, there is only
oneway roundtrip light speed experiment.
This is where a roundtrip experiment uses only one clock and two rods.
In any given frame, this single clock can have only one intrinsic atomic
rhythm, and each rod can have only one physical length. No other physical
configuration is possible. Therefore, light's roundtrip speed can have only
one value in any given frame. However, the twoclock, oneway determination of
the speed of light involves the added ingredient of clock calibration.
Since there are many different ways to calibrate clocks, the
clock calibration process must be specified for any oneway light speed
determination. Of course, since no one has ever made any oneway, twoclock
measurement of light's speed {using comoving clocks), we are talking
theoretically. For example, if one were to specify the clock transport
calibration procedure, then we can all agree that light's oneway speed will be
isotropic per the clocks set by clock transport. However, clocks started by
light signals could have yielded a different result because there is no known
connection between these two clock calibration processes. In other words, just
because clocks slow with their increasing speed through space, this does not
necessarily mean that light signals could not yield synchronized clocks;
indeed, we can all agree that sourcedependent light signals would synchronize
clocks.
To show how we can have absolute universal time without
first detecting the absolute motion, we could begin by simply specifying
synchronous clocks. Here is a theoretical description of such clocks:
In space, imagine unstarted clocks at the ends of a rod,
which are moving to the right at speed s with respect to the UCM, where s
is less than c. To the left of the rod's midpoint, there is an
object moving toward the righthand clock. This object's speed relative to the
UCM is to be s + r, where 0<r< s and where s
+ r is less than c. From the other direction, we have an
object moving toward the lefthand clock, and its speed with respect to the
UCM, is s  r. This means
of course that each object has the same speed r relative to its clock,
and because the distances are also equal, the travel times must also be equal.
Therefore, the clocks will be started simultaneously, unlike clocks, which are
started with light signals, and will move at different speeds with respect to
the clocks, given any rod speed greater than zero (with respect to the
UCM). Assuming that the
MichelsonMorley experiment is correct (that moving rods physically contract
when they move through space), this is the only possible physical explanation
for the observed null result. For the same reason, we know that either an
additional general length contraction (i.e., one affecting both rods equally)
or intrinsic clock slowing can physically explain the KennedyThorndike
experiment null result, with the latter being a reasonable explanation.
We know that intrinsic mass must vary with an object's speed
through space or else we could have long ago used identicallypropelled
inertial objects to synchronize clocks.
Therefore, given two synchronous clocks attached to the ends of a
horizontallymoving rod whose rulermeasured length is z, light's oneway speed
in one direction will be c^{2}/(cs) = max, and in
the other direction it will be c^{2}/(c+s) = min, where s
is the rod's speed relative to the UCM. Since these formulas take into account
both intrinsic clock slowing and intrinsic rod length variance, we do not have
to use unslowed clocks attached to an unshrunken rod in order to find our
speed with respect to the UCM, which of course is either (c^{2}/min)c
or c(c^{2}/max), either of which yields the value of s.
After a frame's speed with respect to the UCM has been determined, the frame's
clocks can be corrected for slowing and being perched atop a shrunken rod
(because these physical distortions are proportional to frame speed with
respect to the UCM, and we know exactly how they are proportional to frame
speed, thanks to the roundtrip experiments).
Discussion
Neither Einstein nor anyone else can prove that clocks
cannot be synchronized, and yet we live as though the case for absolute time
were closed. This is obviously bad
science. Given all of the above, it should now be clear that the most urgent
and most ignored problem in spacetime physics is the question of how to
synchronize clocks. I have found a method for producing synchronous clocks that
works in thought experiment. This
experiment properly takes into account the intrinsic distortions of mass,
length, and clock rhythm, and moreover, it does not ignore the fact that there
is no test for absolute perpendicularity (when one rod moves relative to
another). It is hoped that the concept of “absolute
time” presented here can be further delineated and proven by physical
experiment.
Journal Home Page
