# Absolute vs. Relative: Explaining Relativistic Effects

• Eppur si muove
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of relativity and whether it is the only explanation for certain phenomena. The speaker argues that absolute space and time can also provide explanations for these phenomena, such as the Lorentz Contraction, mass increase, and time dilation. They also suggest that the relativity of simultaneity may be an illusion and provide an example to support their argument. The conversation ends with a question about the existence of absolute zero velocity.

#### Eppur si muove

I have arrived at the conclusion that relativity is by no means the only explanation for the so called 'relativistic effects'. I shall go through the following phenomena that a currently accepted as a proof that SR is correct and show that they can be given an explanation in terms of absolute space and time.

The Lorentz Contraction.

As follows from(or rather the explanation of) the MichelsonMorley experiment the length L of an object undergoes a contraction of the form L = L_o(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) in the direction of its motion. I hold this to be a real, physical phenomenon. This change is taking place for any observer. For an observer inside a spaceship that undergoes such contraction, the observer's own length changes in the exact same proportion and thus for him it seems that nothing has contracted. That is however just an illusion. The change in length has actually taken place for all observers no matter their speed and their contractions.

Mass

Lorentz showed that if the contraction is applied to subatomic particles carrying an electrical charge, one can deduce that the mass of a body must increase in proportion to its length, if exact -

m = M_o/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

This conclusion follows from the electrodynamics if the contraction holds true. There is no reason to think that it is not so for any other object considered.

Time Dilatation

It has been confirmed that particles traveling at near speed of light live(exist) longer than those traveling at smaller velocities. Or that time runs slower for particle with greater velocity than for the one with smaller velocity. This however can be explained with much more ease by saying that it is the increase in mass of a particle that results in it living longer, not time dilation. For surely, the greater the mass, the longer it will take for a particle to start the decay process. There is no need for a time dilation. Again, it is just an illusion. Time doesn't procceed slower for high velocity particles, - they just gain in mass and as a result it makes them live longer before they start decaying. Silimilar arguments can be given for other similar cases.

Thus the relativistic effects are not a real phenomenon but rather an illusion. There is no need to abandon the absolute space and time and it will surely get rid of or at least simplify explanations for many paradoxes involving SR.

Last edited:
What about the relativity of simultaneity?

By the way, although special relativity requires space to be relative and time to be relative, Minkowski proved that they can be unified as an absolute concept: spacetime. Minkowskian geometry, however, upholds the fact that space and time are relative concepts.

What about completing a roundtrip to A. Centauri well within my lifetime aboard a starship traveling arbitrarily close to lightspeed?

Have a few drinks, eat dinner, watch a movie, stretch my legs, chat with a flight attendant, use the toilet, read a little, sleep, wake up, eat breakfast, use the toilet again, fill out a customs form, and we're there! Same thing coming back. Upon arrival, I look younger than my great-grandchildren.

Simultaneity

Since the train is in motion, its length will contract just by the right amount so that M' will move L = L_o(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))/2 to the left just the right amount for it to coincide with M. It is obvious why it should move left. Since the length of the train is now smaller, its midpoint will have to move further to the left. Thus both flashes will reach M' at the same time.

EnumaElish said:
What about completing a roundtrip to A. Centauri well within my lifetime aboard a starship traveling arbitrarily close to lightspeed?

Have a few drinks, eat dinner, watch a movie, stretch my legs, chat with a flight attendant, use the toilet, read a little, sleep, wake up, eat breakfast, use the toilet again, fill out a customs form, and we're there! Same thing coming back. Upon arrival, I look younger than my great-grandchildren.

The fact that you are younger has to do with the increase in mass as the result of Lorentz contraction and the effects it has on moving electromagnetic fields, it has nothing to do with relativity. Refer to my example with high velocity particles under "Time Dilatation".

Last edited by a moderator:
Every inertial reference frame carries its own personal clock, and that clock is unique to that reference frame. There is nothing illusory about that, it's been confirmed by every experiment performed to date.

What experiment do you have in mind? I can assure you, that at the end it will come to changes in particles' mass and energy and thus their life times, - and these do not have to be explained by using relativistic concepts. They can be very well explained in much more simplistic terms as I have done above with the high velocity particles.

Eppur si muove said:
Simultaneity

Since the train is in motion, its length will contract just by the right amount so that M' will move L = L_o(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))/2 to the left just the right amount for it to coincide with M. It is obvious why it should move left. Since the length of the train is now smaller, its midpoint will have to move further to the left. Thus both flashes will reach M' at the same time.
So you're saying there's really no relativity of simultaneity? According to your link, the two flashes reach M' at different times, but you're stating this is wrong and they will really reach M' simultaneously?

Last edited by a moderator:
And if an absolute zero velocity exists (as you are suggesting), how would you find it?

How electric Coulombian force turns to Magnetic force ? Two wires carrying electric current are neutral objects and even so there arel forces between them (magnetic ones). Does this also have to do with mass enlargement ?

Best Regards,

DaTario

Eppur si muove said:
What experiment do you have in mind? I can assure you, that at the end it will come to changes in particles' mass and energy and thus their life times, - and these do not have to be explained by using relativistic concepts. They can be very well explained in much more simplistic terms as I have done above with the high velocity particles.
All of them, as stated. Do you have one in mind [a credible one, preferably] that does not agree with the SR prediction? Arriving at the same conclusion by following a more torturous route does not a better theory make - e.g., Kepler vs Ptolemy.

DaTario said:
How electric Coulombian force turns to Magnetic force ? Two wires carrying electric current are neutral objects and even so there arel forces between them (magnetic ones). Does this also have to do with mass enlargement ?

Best Regards,

DaTario
In a word, electromagnetism. Most high school physics textbooks answer this question. It has nothing to do with mass.

Eppur si muove said:
The fact that you are younger has to do with the increase in mass as the result of Lorentz contraction and the effects it has on moving electromagnetic fields, it has nothing to do with relativity. Refer to my example with high velocity particles under "Time Dilatation".
You must mean "relativistic mass gain." As its name implies, it is a phenomenon due to relativistic effects. You can find well educated participants in these forums who disgree even with this characterization of relativistic mass gain (within special relativity) and prefer to use the terms "increased energy" to describe that effect. It is doubtful that one can allude to an increase in mass while remaining faithful to physics, relativistic or otherwise.

err... particles with higher mass have longer life? ithink they decay faster.

compare tau and electron. which one lives more?

I do agree that it is really an increase in energy not mass, not the kind of mass that we usually have in mind. The particles with higher velocities and energies correspodingly live longer principally because of the Lorentz contraction. A particles starts decaying because the electromagnetic forces over power the nucler forces. The nucler force is much stronger for smaller radii. Thus when a particles undergoes contraction it aids the nuclear forces keeping the particle together for a longer time.

The link I've provided was for the diagram only, I do not agree with its content. In fact I disproved it. And how does my conclusion suggests that there is an absolute zero velocity?

Does relativity explain how electric Coulombian force turns to Magnetic force? As for present, I do not have a decent explanation of why it is so, but if you have a relativistic argument that does that, I'll be glad to consider it.

Last edited:
There is a lot of misconception and wrong physics in the OP (the relativistic EM in QED seems to be completely ignored, for some reason). It is also trying to express another one of those "SR is wrong, I have the right theory", which violates our rules for posting in the main section of PF. This thread will be closed. The originator is welcome to submit his idea to the IR section for review.

Zz.