# That which can change must exist

1. Apr 10, 2004

### 2clockdude

The following is from the first page of Einstein's 1905 SR paper:

"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts
to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light
medium,' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well
as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest...."

Einstein was wrong, even re the _mechanical_ case, for the
following two very simple, physical reasons:

[1] Absolute velocity changes cannot occur unless absolute
velocities exist.

[2] Absolute velocity comparisons cannot be made unless absolute
velocities exist.

Re [1]:
Since an observer in a closed lab frame can easily detect any
change in his velocity without reference to any other frame,
this proves that such a change is not relative, so we can call
it an absolute change, given that "absolute" means "not
relative"; however, in order for something to be capable of
changing, it must first exist, so the detected absolute velocity
change proves the existence of that which changed, i.e., an
absolute velocity.

Re [2]:
Two types of absolute velocity comparisons are possible, viz.,
(a) a direct comparison showing absolutely equal velocities, and
(b) a direct comparison which shows absolutely unequal
velocities.
Note that (a) occurs whenever any two objects remain side-by-
side forever without ever separating, and (b) occurs during the
opposite case. As we just said, in both cases, it is proved that
either the given objects' velocities are absolutely equal or
that they are absolutely unequal. And the existence of such
absolute velocity comparisons necessitates the existence of
those things which are thereby being compared, i.e.,
absolute velocities.

It is clear that either [1] or [2] "shoots down" Einstein's two
claims that "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
absolute rest."

[1] and [2] make it clear that there is much more to motion than
Einstein's merely relative motion.

[1] and [2] tell us that there is a sort of motion that is definitely not merely relative.

[1] and [2] tell us that there is a motion that we can call absolute.

[1] and [2] tell us that there is a unique frame, namely, the one whose absolute velocity is zero.

But which frame is this; i.e., how can we experimentally detect or identify this special frame?

Nothing could be simpler; it is the frame that is created every
time a light ray is emitted from any source. This is due to the
following two simple facts: Light's propagational speed
through space is unaffected by the motion of its source, and
[ii] light's propagational speed through space does not change.

For example, even though a light source may be moving at near
light speed (in direct comparison with a light ray, and not
merely wrt the Earth, etc.), the point in space at which the
ight begins its journey is at absolute rest, and the light
propagates from this point at a fixed speed of c.

To what use could we put a steady-known-speed phenomenon which
starts at a point that is firmly fixed in space? Well, if we
could correctly measure the passing speed of this phenomenon,
then we could calculate our own absolute speed. (This would be
our speed in relation to light's speed through space).

But how can we correctly measure light's passing speed?

This can be done _only_ via absolutely (or truly) synchronous
clocks, but, so far, no one has shown the physics community how
to obtain such clocks.

However, there is hope because just as he failed to prove his
above claims, Einstein failed to prove that truly synchronous
clocks cannot exist. He also failed to prove that his own clocks
are correctly related; however, it is easy to prove that they
are _not_. (For ex., here is one such proof: Even the relativist
knows that events are observer-independent, but Einstein's
clocks in various frames will find different occurrence times
and different time spans for the same two events; since it is
not the events times which vary, it must be Einstein's clocks,
so they are incorrectly related.)

SR is irrelevant; all that matters is that we find some way of
producing truly synchronous clocks. Given such clocks, we can
easily have Newton's universal absolute time by simply correctly
measuring the speed of any passing light ray, and then using the
result to calculate our own speed through space, after which we
can correct for the intrinsic slowing of our clocks and the
intrinsic contractions of our rulers.

Here is my 'parting shot' at the Physics Forum 'controllers':
It is clear that my above expands one's understanding of special
relativity, so it is clear that it belongs in the "Special and
General Relativity" forum, but I am certain that no one has the
courage to let it stay there for more than a nanosecond, even
with slowed time!

Last edited: Apr 12, 2004