Beyond Relativity

In the year 1905, Albert Einstein presented his theory of Special Relativity and revolutionized our understanding about matter and energy by telling that they were the same. He derived the famous E = mc 2 formula from his realization that space and time have the same status. This realization, in turn, was complimented by his assumption that the speed at which light travels in vacuum is constant in any reference frame. Now what is this reference frame? It is not difficult to visualize the concept of reference frame. Imagine that you are traveling in a train and you throw a ball to a co-passenger in the same direction the train was running. The average speed of the ball should be the distance between you and your co-passenger divided by the time taken by the ball to reach your co-passenger. However, if someone outside the train watches it, one would find that the distance traveled by the ball is the sum of the distance traveled by the train during the time you throw the ball and your co-passenger receives it and the distance traveled by the ball from you to your co-passenger. Consequently, the outside observer would find a higher speed of the ball. The most important thing to notice here is that the time taken by the ball to move from one point to the other will appear to be the same to you and to the outside observer although the distance traveled by the ball would differ. You and your co-passenger measure the speed of the ball inside the train which is one reference frame attached with the train. The outside observer measures the speed of the ball in another reference frame attached to the Earth. One reference frame is moving at a constant speed with respect to another reference frame. If another train passes you with a different speed as compared to the speed of your train and a passenger inside that train measures the speed of the ball, he or she will derive a different speed of the ball. So, the speed of the ball is “relative” to the reference frame wherein it is measured. Einstein considered that light would not follow this rule; the speed of light would remain the same in all reference frames. In order to describe any cosmic event, one has to consider both space and time together. Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity becomes significant only when the speed of an object is comparable to the speed of light. But nothing can exceed the speed of light. Now, if the speed of the ball or the train varies; i.e., if the ball or the train accelerates or retards, Special Theory of Relativity does not apply. For an accelerating reference frame, General Theory of Relativity has to be invoked. The contraction in length and the dilation of time is special relativistic effects whereas the acceleration due to gravitation is a general relativistic effect. Therefore, Special Relativity is a particular case of General Relativity. According to General Theory of Relativity, one can cancel the effect of gravitation locally by moving in an accelerating reference frame such as a free falling lift or aircraft. But it cannot be canceled globally. We know that the universe is expanding. All the galaxies are receding from each other. Since the rate of expansion of the universe changes, the dynamic of the universe is described by General Theory of Relativity.

Siva’s theories explained the necessity of new theory for description of the Universe, space ,time ,space-time and matter. It explained the formation of ‘space time continuum’ in terms of ‘Films of the universe’ and an effect of consciousness associated to living things. Thus it is required to bring consciousness in to physical laws and transformations. The relation between physical world and consciousness has been analyzed clearly and explained that consciousness, if we interpret in physics, must be an inertial frame of reference which can be transformed in to inertial frames defined by ‘Special Theory of Relativity’. It is possible only by changing the signal velocity from ‘c’ to ‘c√2’ . Thus the ‘Special Theory of Relativity’ has been modified and named as ‘Super theory of Relativity’. The relativistic factor for it is also calculated as [1+(v2/c2)]1/2 where v = vo [{1- (vo2/c2)}]-1/2 here vo is its absolute velocity .The necessity to adopt a new signal velocity which is greater than that of light has been discussed and the ‘Principle of Relativity’ and ‘Principle of simultaneity’ which are basics for transformation has been applied to interpret it in terms of relativity. It has been concluded that velocity of light is a part of signal velocity and photon will have rest mass. It says that the observable velocity is a result of absolute velocity multiplied by relativistic factor for ‘Super Theory of Relativity’. Thus infinite signal transformation is introduced for transformation between Inertial frames of reference. Infinite signal velocity will explain the ‘Quantum entanglement’ in terms of transformation of physical laws from one frame to another as explained in ‘Special & General Theories of Relativity’.

Most people believe that time is continuous, but we assume the opposite is true; moreover, by modelling time as discrete, the rules and laws of nature can be efficiently described in a unitary 4D xyzt space [1,2]. In a previous article entitled 101 Authors Against Einstein [2], we presented scathing critiques of Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, explaining and proving how Einstein's SR and GR theories are fundamentally incomplete and misleading due to a poor understanding of the underlying universal laws of physics. We also assume that the main reason for Einstein's errors in general relativity is that he started from the mathematical Riemann space where time is a continuous scalar and inadequate to demonstrate the physical laws in the unitary 4D xyzt space [3,4]. In this article, we examine the link between the discretization of time, the universal laws of physics, and Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, demonstrating that [3,4,5]:  Special Relativity is a Special Case of General Relativity. Special relativity and general relativity form a single theory.  Einstein's Theory of Gravitation in 1915 Led to the Erroneous Conclusion that Gravity is Not a Force, but a Consequence of the Curvature of Space Time. We show that gravity is a real force that curves space-time, and not the other way around. We also present and define the rules and foundations of discrete time theory. Finally, it should be clarified that this article is not intended to diminish the achievements of the great Einstein, such as the discovery of the laser theory 50 years before its practical application, but rather to dispel any misconceptions about his theories if any.  Note: If you are Not Familiar with the Universal Laws of Physics, Please Stop Reading. This article is not intended for you.

The theory of special and general relativity causes a “schizophrenic” dilemma in physics. It undeniably provides mathematically correct values, but it is undeniably epistemologically wrong in many respects. Including the relativistic explanation of the gravitational “time dilation” and the curvature of light beams at the surfaces of large masses, the author demonstrates the illogical character of relativistic physics. When one thinks the relativistic explanations of gravitational time dilatation and of the curvature of light rays by masses through to the end, they lead to absurd and contradictory logical conclusions.

Tam Hunt, UC Santa Barbara, tam.hunt@psych.ucsb.eduThe Lorentz transformations form the mathematical core of the 1905 theory of Special Relativity as well as the earlier version of relativity created by Lorentz himself, originally in 1895 but developed further in the ensuing years. These two theories interpret the physical significance of the transformations quite differently, but in ways that are generally not considered to be empirically distinguishable. It is widely believed today that Einstein’s Special Relativity presents the superior interpretation. A number of lines of evidence, however, from cosmology, quantum theory and nuclear physics present substantial evidence against the Special Relativity interpretation of the Lorentz transformations, challenging this traditional view. I review this evidence and suggest that we are now at a point where the sum of the evidence weighs against the Special Relativity interpretation of the transformations and in favor of a Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian approach instead.1. IntroductionI’m sitting in a public square in Athens, Greece, biding my time as I write these words. The battery on my phone ran out as I was trying to navigate to my lodgings on my first night in this historic city, forcing me to stop and charge my phone for a little while. I’m waiting for the passage of time.The nature of time has been debated vigorously since at least the age of Heraclitus and Parmenides in ancient Greece. “All things flow,” said Heraclitus. “Nothing flows,” said Parmenides as a counter-intuitive rejoinder, suggesting that all appearances of change are an illusion. How could Parmenides make the case that nothing flows, nothing changes? It would seem, from easy inspection of the world around us that indeed all things do flow, all things are always changing. So what was Parmenides talking about?Parmenides’ arguments illustrate well the rationalist approach that Plato was later to more famously advocate, against the empiricist or “sensationist” approach that Heraclitus and Aristotle too would champion as a contrary approach. Parmenides and Plato saw reason as the path toward truth and they were not afraid to allow reason to contradict what seemed to be obvious sensory-based features of the world. Apparent empirical/sensory facts can deceive and, for these men, Parmenides, Plato and their followers, reason alone was the arbiter of truth. Wisdom entailed using reason to see through the world’s illusions to the deeper reality.Heraclitus and Aristotle, to the contrary, stressed the need to be empirical in our science and philosophy (science and philosophy were the same endeavor in the era of classical Greece). Reason was of course a major tool in the philosopher’s toolbox for these men too, but it seems that reason unmoored from evidence should not be used to trump the obvious facts of the world. The Aristotelian approach is to find a pragmatic balance between empirical facts and reason in attempting to discern the true contours of reality.Einstein was firmly in the camp of Parmenides and Plato (Popper, et al. 1998). He famously considered the passage of time, the distinction between past, present and future, to be a “stubbornly persistent illusion.” This view of time, as an illusory construct hiding a deeper timeless world, was based on his theories of relativity. Einstein and his co-thinkers held this view, of time as illusory, despite the obvious passage of time in the world around us, no matter where we look. The widely-held view today is that Einstein finally won the long war, decisively, between Heraclitus and Parmenides. Despite appearances, nothing flows and the passage of time is just that: only appearance.I suggest in this paper, however, that this conclusion is premature. Einstein’s thinking is indeed an example of rationalism trumping empiricism and it is time for us to take a more empirical approach to these foundational questions of physics and philosophy. Today’s physics lauds empiricism rhetorically, but in practice a rationalist approach often holds sway, particularly with respect to the nature of time.2. An overview of Special Relativity and Lorentzian RelativityIn discussing the nature of time with respect to modern physics, I will focus on the Special Theory of Relativity (SR) and avoid discussion of the general theory. Einstein’s 1905 theory of relativity adopted the Lorentz transformations directly, unchanged from Lorentz’s own version of these equations (Einstein 1905, Lorentz 1895 and 1904, in Lorentz 1937). Einstein’s key difference from Lorentz’s version of relativity (first put forth in 1895, but developed further in later work) was to reinterpret Lorentz’s equations, based on a radically different assumption about the nature of physical reality. Lorentz interpreted the relativistic effects of length contraction and time dilation—which follow straightforwardly from the Lorentz transformations—as resulting from interaction with an ether that constituted simply the properties of space (Lorentz’s ether was not some additional substance that pervades space, as was the case in some earlier ideas of the ether). Einstein, to the contrary, interpreted these effects as resulting from the dynamics of spacetime, a union of space and time into a single notion, and dismissed the ether as “superfluous.”Because Lorentz’s and Einstein’s versions of relativity both use the Lorentz transformations, they will yield in many cases the same empirical predictions. The prevailing view today, then, is that while these two theories are empirically indistinguishable there are other considerations, relating to parsimony primarily, that render special relativity the preferred approach. I discuss below, however, why we now have good empirical reasons to distinguish between these two interpretations—in favor of the Lorentzian approach.Length contraction and time dilation occur as a result of the assumed absolute speed of light because either space or time, or both, must distort if we consider the speed of light to be invariant. This is because speed is measured simply by dividing distance traveled by the time elapsed; and if the speed of light remains the same in all circumstances then space and/or time must distort in order to maintain this invariance. As an object travels closer and closer to the speed of light, its length must decrease (length contraction) and/or the time elapsed must increase (time dilation) – but only from the perspective of an observer in a different inertial frame. In the original inertial frame there is no length contraction or time dilation.“Moving clocks run slow” is a good shorthand for relativistic time dilation, but again only from the perspective of a different inertial frame. Time moves at the same rate for an observer in the moving frame of reference, no matter what one’s speed in relation to other frames. Relativistic effects only occur when considering the relationship between two different frames of reference, not in the same frame.

In the year 1905, Einstein first proposed the land marking special theory of relativity. At the time, few understood it, and even fewer believed in it. It was until 1919, when first experiment was carried out on the general theory of relativity which actually proved the special theory of relativity by some inferences of the experiment. This chapter will revise the mass – energy equivalence equation with some conceptual modifications in the lights of particle – antiparticle pair production and annihilation. The basics of the theory of special relativity are kept intact as exactly the same but the conceptual modifications are arranged to justify the conclusion. It was indeed a remarkable year was 1905 in physics and astronomy when Einstein first proposed the special theory of relativity. This theory is the foundation of modern astronomy and astrophysics. This theory was also the foundation of the theory of general relativity proposed by Einstein in 1915 to incorporate gravity into the system. Thus, the special theory of relativity already became of supreme importance in physics since the beginning of nineteenth century and it continues to be the right from the word go theory in modern physics. An attempt is made in this chapter for a deliberate and comprehensive derivation from an equation of the special theory of relativity. The derivation is made with an aim to look deep inside of the theory of special relativity to conclude a comprehensive conclusion. Also some conceptual modifications are arranged to justify the conclusion. The physical time, mass and velocity are related in some equations in this chapter.

This paper shows that gravitational results of general relativity (GR) can be reached by using special relativity (SR) via a SR Lagrangian that derives from the corresponding GR time dilation and vice versa. It also presents a new SR gravitational central scalar generalized potential V=V(r,r.,ϕ.), where r is the distance from the center of gravity and r.,ϕ. are the radial and angular velocity, respectively. This is associated with the Schwarzschild GR time dilation from where a SR scalar generalized potential is obtained, which is exactly equivalent to the Schwarzschild metric. Thus, the Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion, the Gravitational Deflection of Light, the Shapiro time delay, the Gravitational Red Shift, etc., are explained with the use of SR only. The techniques used in this paper can be applied to any GR spacetime metric, Teleparallel Gravity, etc., in order to obtain the corresponding SR gravitational scalar generalized potential and vice versa. Thus, the case study of Newtonian Gravitational Potential according to SR leads to the corresponding non-Riemannian metric of GR. Finally, it is shown that the mainstream consideration of the Gravitational Red Shift contains two approximations, which are valid in weak gravitational fields only.

إن النظرية النسبية العامة والخاصة تسببتا في حالة من التناقضات في علم الفيزياء. فبالرغم من أن النظرية النسبية تقدم قيماً صحيحة رياضياً، إلا أن بها قصور في العديد من الجوانب بما في ذلك التفسير النسبي لميل الجاذبية "تمدد الوقت" وانحناء أشعة الضوء على أسطح الكتل الكبيرة. وعند دراسة النظرية النسبية الخاصة نجد أنها مشتقة من تحويلات لورنتز، والتي جاءت نتيجة فشل تجربة مايكلسون مورلي. ويمكن القول بأن ما تعبر عنه تحويلات لورنتز، هو ليس المسافة الفعلية بين المشاهد والحدث. فجاءت النظرية النسبية الخاصة بمعادلات نتائجها غير دقيقة في وصف الطول والزمن والكتلة وجمع السرعات. لأن قوانين النظرية النسبية هي تطبيق تحويلات لورنتز على تلك المعادلات. لذا استوجب البحث عن تحويلات جديدة تصف المسافة الفعلية بين كل من المراقب الساكن، والمراقب المتحرك، والحدث. وأن الإلكترون هو جسيم يتحرك بواسطة موجة، وليس هو بذاته الذي يتصرف كموجة، يُمكّننا ذلك من فهم سبب سلوك الإلكترون الموجي في تجربة الشق المزدوج. اعتمدت الدراسة على التدقيق في الأسباب الضرورية اللازمة لوجود النسبية الخاصة وأصل اشتقاقها. فكانت تجربة (مايكلسون ومورلي) التي لـم يستطع العلماء تفسير نتائجها الغير متوقعة، وهي التي أدت إلى اشتقاق تحويلات (لورنتز) بهذه الصيغة الغير موفقة، والتي منها جاءت النظرية النسبية. وقد ابتكر الباحث أداة لتوضيح حركة الضوء، حيث تصف الأداة تجربة عملية لحركة الأجسام عندما تكون السرعة قريبة من سرعة الضوء. توصلت الدراسة إلى أن هناك تأثير واضح للوسط الناقل على الموجة في اتجاهها وسرعتها، والذي يمكننا من تفسير تجربة (مايكلسون ومورلي). وفي ضوء ذلك تم إيجاد تحويلات جديدة تصف المسافة والطول والزمن والسرعة بشكل صحيح. لذلك، تم وضع قوانين جديدة لتصحيح القوانين التي جاءت بها نظريات النسبية العامة والخاصة.

The gravity in the context of General Relativity (GR) as dynamical curvature of spacetime remains a principal impediment not only to its unification with the other fundamental interactions, but also to the formulation of quantum gravity. One possible resolution involves considering gravity in the context of Special Relativity (SR). This paper presents a procedure, which correlates the GR metrics of curved spacetime and the SR Gravitational Scalar Generalized Potential (GSGP). The GR time dilation is the key-point for the correlation of the two gravities, which implies the corresponding SR Lagrangian. Previous papers have already demonstrated the procedure and the results in cases of FLRW metric, wormholes with spherical symmetry, and Schwarzschild metric (where not only the gravitational motions (free falls) in the context of SR are exactly the same as those in the context of GR with stationary metric, but also the SR and GR Gravitational Red Shift). This paper analytically derives the general formulae of Equations of Motion in Spacetime endowed with Stationary metric in the context of GR and the ones in the context of SR, proving that they are exactly the same. Finally, it presents the case studies of gravitational motions around Schwarzschild blackhole, Kerr rotating blackhole and Standard Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole. Thus, it is shown that these motions have an equivalent SR viewpoint.

Born in Ulm, Württemberg (now Germany), Einstein was a theoretical physicist who initiated a scientific revolution with his theory of general relativity. Challenging classical mechanics and its basis in Newtonian science, Einstein replaced the Euclidean model of geometry with four-dimensional spacetime and, from the axiom of the absolute speed of light, logically deduced the relativity of time. Subsequent to the advent of relativity theory, there is no longer any absolute temporal metric for defining the real. Einstein published two seminal papers, "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" (1905; "The Special Theory of Relativity") and "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie" (1916; "The General Theory of Relativity"), and in 1921 was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. His name and iconic visage have become synonymous with modern science, leaving an ineradicable imprint on 20th-century culture far beyond the enclaves of scientific research, a status partly achieved by his willingness to popularize his work. Einstein made lasting contributions to gravitational field theory, astrophysics and quantum mechanics, and much fame has accrued around his groundbreaking formula E = mc2, with its articulation of mass-energy equivalence. But it is with the theory and concept of time-relativity that Einstein’s thought crosses over into cultural and aesthetic modernism.

The twin paradox is often misunderstood, both in textbook and science popularizations. This article is intended to help clarify misconceptions involving the famous thought experiment. Of special importance is how we define the inertial frame in special theory of relativity. Another common factor that is overlooked involves the difference between time dilation, which is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations and the concept of look back time, which is independent of that. The concept of the invariant space-time interval and Minkowski diagrams are used in making these issues clearer.

Science sets itself apart from other paths to truth by recognizing that even its greate practitioners sometimes err.

This article refutes the Time Dilation Equation and Length Contraction that are derived in the Special Theory of Relativity. The conclusion reached in this article is that Time Dilation and Length Contraction cannot be characterized by simple equations due to repulsion gravity. The conclusion follows from gravity being a natural force of repulsion rather than the assumption that gravity is an attraction force. That gravity is a repulsion force follows from the Sir Arthur Eddington experiment designed to prove that gravity affects light. Few looked at that experiment as anything other than proving Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity that suggested gravity would affect light. The experiment went beyond what most imagined it accomplished. It surely verified that gravity affects light. But it did more than that. The experiment showed that gravity is a force of repulsion and not attraction as most believed. That gravity is repulsion and not an attraction force indicates that the relativity time dilation equation derived in the Special Theory of Relativity is intractably undecidable likely subject to Godels Incompleteness theorems

The progress of modern cosmology took off in 1917 when A. Einstein published his paper on general theory of relativity extending his work of special theory of relativity (1905). In 1922 Alexander Friedmann constructed a mathematical model for expanding Universe that had a big bang in remote past. The experimental evidences could come in 1929 by the pioneering work on nebular red shifts by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason. Doppler’s red shift for light also comes as a deduction of special theory of relativity which provides a fundamental formalism for observational astronomy. It can also be deduced from cosmological red shift arising from the curvature of space time warp of the Universe depending on the evolution model opted for the Universe. The gravitational red shift comes as a consequence of the principle of equivalence in presence of weak gravitational field which expresses the identity of the gravitational and inertial mass. The gravitation itself is a manifestation of curvature in space time. Massive objects show noticeable bending of light near it which explains well the apparent images formation when added with the gravitational fall of the photons towards the object. Special and general theory of relativity can be realized as the best mathematical narrations of the cosmic dance. This paper highlights the experimental evidences in favor of relativity and their applications in cosmology which could be possible with the invention of ultra high precision instruments in last century.

The special theory of relativity (STR) is based on two apparently contradictory postulates: The equality of all physical laws in all inertial reference systems and the invariance of the speed of light ( <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> </mml:math> ). This results in counterintuitive conclusions, including time dilation, object length contraction (i.e., Lorentz contraction), and mass increase at relativistic speeds as well as the unification of mass and energy. Although the STR has been empirically confirmed, the ultimate cause of special relativity as well as the reason for the invariance of c and its actual value (2.99 × 108 m/s) remain unknown. We have recently postulated that a hypothetical displacement of the three-dimensional (3D) space where we live throughout a fourth spatial dimension, which would be the basis for time, is a requirement for the gravitational effects contemplated by the general theory of relativity. This tetra-dimensional model of the universe explains that the actual value of <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> </mml:math> equals the speed at which our 3D space displaces along the fourth dimension. It also explains time dilation, Lorentz contraction, Lorentz transformation, and mass increase at relativistic speeds, as well as the unification of mass and energy, as epiphenomena derived from the projection of the fourth dimension to our 3D space. We conclude that our universe model can intuitively explain special relativity as well as the reason for the invariance of <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> </mml:math> and its actual value.