Complex Relativity
Introduction
Constant Space,
Constant time,
Relative Light.
Don Edward Sprague,
30 Dec, 2007 Posted on Internet, 30 Dec, 2007
Updated Jan, 21, 2008
Introduction:
The history of weather predictions has been filled with mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. They are like having a
splinter in your finger. It feels good to get the splinter out and it sure feels good when your mistake is corrected.
We basically know how the weather is predicted. Collect historical data and project into the future. Using the laws
of physics and data about the time things happed at a place on earth enables projection of possible future weather
events. The same applies to projections of bodies in space. It is widely accepted that the laws of physics are the
same everywhere and the speed of light is the same everywhere. That believe is linked to Albert Einstein’s paper
on the Theory of Relativity. These two widely known quotes are referred to as the consequences of Special
Relativity
The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws
of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed
by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.
Actually, the consequence of Einstein’s papers is the belief that space and time are not constant. However;
something about time and space must be constant because things like weather reports are getting more accurate.
If time and space are variable, how do we get a constant when we multiply a variable time by a variable distance?
It is obvious that everything we see is from the past location of objects in certain places. It is obvious that we can
predict future locations of objects based on the past. If time and space has no meaning, then we could not have
calendars. We could not land a craft on the moon if time and space were not constant.
Concerning the speed of light, every measurement of the speed of light has proven that it is constant relative to
the frame of reference where it is measured.
w = c-v and W=v+w may be the two most important formula in the Theory of relativity.
Quote’s from Einstein paper:
Thus in total he covers the distance W=v+w relative to the embankment
w = c-v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes cut smaller than c.
the law of the transmission of light in a vacuum must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage
as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference.
End quote from Albert’s paper.
Those simple three value formula shows that Einstein considered the speed of light to be relative to the moving
carriage as well as relative to the embankment. This shows how he pondered the fact that velocities are relative
within a frame but additive across frames. He recognized the problem with his theory that "c" is simply relative to a
frame of reference instead of constant across frames of reference. He argued that the conflict about addition of
velocity across the carriage and the embankment frames was eliminated because time and space have no meaning.
I too believe that the speed of light is relative to the frame of reference. I believed it for the same reason Einstein
believes w=c-v. Other velocities are additive so Einstein and I agree w=c-v which means the speed of light is also
additive. Einstein’s problem with w = c-v and W=v+w causes a problem for other people. Einstein's theory says “the
speed of light to be relative to the moving carriage as well as relative to the embankment”. However; people say that his
theory does not mean “the speed of light to be relative to the moving carriage as well as relative to the embankment”.
A typical animation depicting relativity shows two people at a common point when two lightning flashes occur. One
person does not move while the other moves closer to one lightning flash. Obviously the moving person does not
see the events as simultaneous. Anyone who sees the animation should say: SO WHAT? A moving person saw
something different from a person who is just standing. Well according to the theory of relativity, the animation is
just one half of the picture. There should be another comparable animation showing the relative perspective from
the other person. That is what relativity is all about. It is not about the logical results of a person moving closer to
a flash of light. I have been told by supposedly well informed people that just half the animation is correct. If half is
correct, then so what? The result is obvious and does not represent relativity. The half animation does not address
Einstein’s problem with the w = c-v and W=v+w formula. It is just an animation that shows how a moving person
will get closer to an event. The reason Albert needed time and space to change is to deal with his problem of light
being relative to both the train and the ground while also being additive across both frames. Most of what I say
should be basically obvious to the casual observer once it is pointed out.
Now we will address the statement about the laws of physics being the same in any inertial or non-accelerated
frame. The statement has a major problem in that; everything is always moving. There is no such thing as a
stationary object. There is such a thing as one thing being basically stationary relative to another object. A person
standing on the surface of the earth is moving with the movement of the earth. The water in the ocean is moving
with the earth. Further, the water is impacted by the movement of the earth relative to other moving objects like
the moon and other planets. Every thinking person knows all that as fact. The laws of physics are the same
everywhere regardless of the movement of the frame of reference.
Future observation of past events:
We all know that when we observe the stars, we might be seeing light from stars that do not exist. They did exist at
some time and we are observing the conditions associated with that past event. Occasionally asteroids are discovered.
The path of one was projected to hit a planet at a specific time. It seems that kind of projection would be very hard to
accomplish if time and space had no meaning.
If a person stands on the surface of the earth and watches the horizon, that person will eventually see the horizon hide
the sun from view. We know that a straight line between the person and the horizon and the top ridge of the sun will or
did exist at some moment in time. That alignment did not exist when the person observed the alignment. When we
watch the sunset, we are watching the results of a past event, In fact, when we observe any event, we are watching the
results of what happened sometime ago. Although that seems like a very obvious statement, it is so profound that it
should be part of a foundation of a basic postulate of science.
Think about a person watching the horizon. At a moment in time and space, three points have a relationship. P is the
person, H is the horizon, S is the sun.
P-------------H--------------------------------------------S
01234567890123456789012345678901234567890
The conditions between the points existed. Those conditions change a moment later. The locations of the points in space
at that moment will always be where they were at that prior moment. Any measurements of the conditions of that past
moment will always and only be related to the past moment. At a moment later in time and space, the three points will
have some relationship. That relationship may be basically the same or it may be very different.
P-------------H--------------------------------------------S
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
Possibility 1 after the initial moment. All three points move in unison in some direction. Although it is not likely for three
separate objects to remain uniform in nature without a solid physical connections, it is possible. The person and the rim
of the earth will remain the same but the location of the sun will have changed.
P----------------------H------------------------------S
01234567890123456789012345678901234567890
Possibility 2 after the initial moment. Point P remained close to it’s original location. Point H moved from point P. Point S
moved closer to point P.
P--------H-------------------------------------------------------------------S
9876501234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Possibility 3 after the initial moment. Point P again remained close to it’s original location. Point H moved closer to point P.
Point S moved further from point P.
I listed three possibilities of movement of points P, H, and S. There are many possible combination of location changes of
a person, the horizon and the sun after a sunset. For thousands of years, people have been recording information about
the time the sun and moon are at different places in space throughout the many days and years. Various solar and lunar
cycles have been known for thousands of years. That should be very difficult to accomplish if time and space had no
meaning. The description of the changes are not relatively to any one particular point of reference because they can be
equally described from any point of reference. Thousands of years of observation from thousands of points show that
everything is moving all the time. We also know the observations have been made from thousands of locations and the
results correlate. The fact is; nothing remains at rest at a point in space at any time from moment to moment.
Although that seems like a very obvious statement, it is so profound that it is part of the foundation of a basic postulate
of science.
Relationship of moving objects
If the person watching the sunset were to throw a stone into a lake, the stone would make a ripple on the surface of the
water. Suppose that ripple arrives at the shore just as sunset occurs. If the person watching these events were to snap
a picture of the ripple on the water just before the sunlight was blocked, it could be a very good picture. Other than the
picture of the ripple and the sunset, there is no direct relationship between the two motions. There is a relationship
between the sun and the earth. There is a relationship between the earth and the water. A person watching the tide
move in or out is observing the impact of two or more isolated objects. The moon doesn't seem to be directly attached to
the water that is on the surface of the earth. The moon is attached through an unseen connection. So we see that the
movement of objects have both a direct as well as an indirect relationship or impact on the movement of others.
Although that seems like a very obvious statement, it is so profound that it is part of the foundation of a basic
postulate of science.
Different arrival time of observation of a single event
Suppose my wife and I plan to view the sunset. Several hours before sunset, the light we will view begins it’s rapid
journey to the earth. Suppose my wife gets a call and must go to visit a relative. Suppose she drives one hour west.
Later she looks at her watch and sees it is time for sunset at home. Suppose she calls me as I sit beside our lake
watching the sunset. As we talk on the phone, I tell her the sunset is really great. It is still one hour to sunset for her.
This is analogous to the moving train thought experiment in the Theory of Relativity. Time and space did not change
because she drove one hour while the sunlight was traveling to earth. It is obvious she must wait one hour for sunset.
The sunlight that began it’s travel sometime earlier will reach us at different times. It is obvious that the single
electromagnetic disturbance of the substance as it propagates through the universal magnet field according to
electromagnetic laws, at the limited identified speed (light), will not arrive at both of us at the same time because she
moved a specific amount of time and a specific distance while the light (the electromagnetic disturbance) was traveling.
The different arrival time can be identified because space and time is constant and measurable. If it were important for
us to see the very same pulse of sunlight regardless of our location, we could calculate the times we each would need to
observe the sun. Since we did not care about watching a specific blip of light, we do not need to calculate when the light
would arrive. Since we did want to observer the sunset together, she was able to check the sunset time table in the
news paper and then later look at her watch and call at the correct time to allow us to talk during sunset. So we see that
the movement of objects in time and space can be consistently measures and accurately predicted because time and
space are constant. Although that seems like a very obvious statement, it is so profound that it is part of the foundation
of a basic postulate of science.
NOTE: A prediction of Maxwell’s equations was that what we call light is an electromagnet wave. The agreement of the
results seem to show that light and magnetism are affections of the same substance, and that light is an
electromagnetic disturbance propagated through the magnetic field according to electromagnetic laws.
Galileo’s and Einstein’s laws of motion:
Galileo gave us his law that basically says: All speeds are relative to the speed of the observer. We know that new ideas
grow and any law may eventually change. As more information was developed, issues with Galileo’s law became
obvious. Many people contributed information and ideas that resulted in the eventual change to his law. Now we have
Einstein’s theories which give us a law which could basically be stated: All speeds except space and time are relative to
the frame of reference. Just as Galileo’s law was found to have problems, the same applies to Einstein’s theories and his
law. More people have gained experience and delivered more information. Eventually Einstein’s theory and laws will be
replaced with updated views. The biggest issue is to get people to realize that they have a splinter in their finger or are
making a mistake. They will feel so good when the splinter is removed or they correct their mistake.
Galileo’s law: All speeds are relative to the speed of the observer.
Einstein’s law: All speeds except space and time are relative to the frame of reference.
Complex relativity law: All objects are moving and all speeds of observable objects can be measured relative to the
speed and perspective of any number of observers in various locations and the results from observer to observer must
correlate. Note: this law includes light, space, and time.
The real Consequences of Special Relativity:
Earlier I said: “It is widely accepted that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and the speed of light is the same
everywhere. That believe is linked to Albert Einstein’s paper on the Theory of Relativity”. Those two sentences are
correct. Something is widely accepted and the belief is linked to a paper. Unfortunately, The paper does not say what
people have given it credit for saying.
I have shown that the theory of relativity does not say the speed of light is the same everywhere. It says: “the
transmission of light in a vacuum must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as
when the rails are the body of reference". That means it says the speed of light is relative (additive) to the frame of reference.
The theory of relativity does not say the laws of physics are the same everywhere. It says they too are relative to the
frame of reference. So what we have is what people think of the consequences of the theory of relativity.
What it says: The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
What people think it says: The speed of light is the same everywhere.
What it says: The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This
means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the
same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.
What people think it says: The laws of physics are the same everywhere.
What people think about light and the laws of physics being the same everywhere is correct. What they think the theory
says is not correct. The theory of relativity says those things are relative. The relativity portion is the problem. Sure
things are relative. We can predict the weather because of relativity. We have calendars because things are relative.
There is complex relativity for the motion of all things. The speed of light, the laws of physics, time and space do not
change from one frame to another frame of reference.
Degree of impact related to an objects influence.
Think of a river. If a person puts a stick in the river, there is a very slight ripple around the stick. If many people put a
dam across the river, there is a significant change to the flow of the river. Think of a puddle of water. If someone gently
puts a stick in it, there is no perceptible or measurable change. If someone drives a big truck through it, there a
significant change.
Think of an object suspended in a stationary magnetic field. Think of an object striking the suspended object. Think of
the speed of the stationary magnetic field that contains the suspended object. The stationary magnetic field is moving
some speed in some direction and it is impacted by other remote objects and the impact of remote objects is always
changing from instant to instant. This introduces a huge number of variables to any experiment. Which way will a
moving particle change it's movement when it is struck by another moving object. All the variables must be included to
accurately project the outcome. The galactic alignment can change the conditions of any experiment on earth.
Just as there are various types of water formations and methods of altering them, there are various aspects to the
universal magnet field and there are various ways the disruptions to the magnet field are initiated and then how they
propagate. Think of a bucket of rocks. The rocks could include coal, diamonds, granite, sulfur and Uraninite. One of the
rocks is most unique of all the listed rocks because of it’s higher level of interaction with the universal magnetic field. A
hunk of granite may be very big but a very small Uraninite rock emits much more radiation. Think of a black hole. That is
something that has a very big impact on the universal magnetic field. Size, movement and structure of one or more
objects are variables that impact the universal magnetic field and other objects will be impacted by those variables.
Although that seems like a very obvious statement, it is so profound that it is part of the foundation of a basic postulate
of science.
Disturbance movement
What we call light is one of the ways we see a disturbances of the universal magnet field. We still can not see the actual
field. Observations of the sun’s magnetic field indicates that it is considerable different than earth’s magnetic field. While
we know of the sun’s magnet field differences, we know less about the universal magnetic field differences. Think about
the oceans. The fluid dynamics in the oceans is very complex. There are rivers in the oceans. There are relatively dead
spots. There is reportedly a place in the Pacific ocean that has floating trash from throughout the pacific. The same
potential exists for the universe. There can be relatively dead spots in the universal magnetic field. Obviously there are
hot and cold spots in the oceans and in weather and in the universal magnetic field. If the old adage about every action
has an equal and opposite reaction is true, then the movement of what we call light has an equal and opposite
movement. That applies at the sending end, through travel and at the arriving end. Think of a bullet. At the sending
end, there is an obvious action. Through travel, there is a less obvious action but that action has been observed and
measures. At the receiving end there is a point of impact as the bullet goes through the target. Gravity, light and
bullets are not the same but the analogy applies. As any disturbance in the universal magnetic field originates, travels
and impacts a target, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It is obvious that the universe operates like a complex of interacting generators. Some of the generators are very big and
others are not so big. Still, all of them are interacting. They create various forms of the fields and various
electromagnetic disturbances. They include visible light, outside visible spectrum and gravity to list a few.
NOTE; The concept of energy emerged out of the idea of vis viva, which Leibniz defined as the product of the mass of an
object and its velocity squared. It seems this is where E=mc2 came from.
The Addendum to the theory of complex relativity: click here.
Copyright © 2007 2008 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Constant Space,
Constant time,
Relative Light.
Don Edward Sprague,
30 Dec, 2007 Posted on Internet, 30 Dec, 2007
Updated Jan, 21, 2008
Introduction:
The history of weather predictions has been filled with mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. They are like having a
splinter in your finger. It feels good to get the splinter out and it sure feels good when your mistake is corrected.
We basically know how the weather is predicted. Collect historical data and project into the future. Using the laws
of physics and data about the time things happed at a place on earth enables projection of possible future weather
events. The same applies to projections of bodies in space. It is widely accepted that the laws of physics are the
same everywhere and the speed of light is the same everywhere. That believe is linked to Albert Einstein’s paper
on the Theory of Relativity. These two widely known quotes are referred to as the consequences of Special
Relativity
The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws
of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed
by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.
Actually, the consequence of Einstein’s papers is the belief that space and time are not constant. However;
something about time and space must be constant because things like weather reports are getting more accurate.
If time and space are variable, how do we get a constant when we multiply a variable time by a variable distance?
It is obvious that everything we see is from the past location of objects in certain places. It is obvious that we can
predict future locations of objects based on the past. If time and space has no meaning, then we could not have
calendars. We could not land a craft on the moon if time and space were not constant.
Concerning the speed of light, every measurement of the speed of light has proven that it is constant relative to
the frame of reference where it is measured.
w = c-v and W=v+w may be the two most important formula in the Theory of relativity.
Quote’s from Einstein paper:
Thus in total he covers the distance W=v+w relative to the embankment
w = c-v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes cut smaller than c.
the law of the transmission of light in a vacuum must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage
as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference.
End quote from Albert’s paper.
Those simple three value formula shows that Einstein considered the speed of light to be relative to the moving
carriage as well as relative to the embankment. This shows how he pondered the fact that velocities are relative
within a frame but additive across frames. He recognized the problem with his theory that "c" is simply relative to a
frame of reference instead of constant across frames of reference. He argued that the conflict about addition of
velocity across the carriage and the embankment frames was eliminated because time and space have no meaning.
I too believe that the speed of light is relative to the frame of reference. I believed it for the same reason Einstein
believes w=c-v. Other velocities are additive so Einstein and I agree w=c-v which means the speed of light is also
additive. Einstein’s problem with w = c-v and W=v+w causes a problem for other people. Einstein's theory says “the
speed of light to be relative to the moving carriage as well as relative to the embankment”. However; people say that his
theory does not mean “the speed of light to be relative to the moving carriage as well as relative to the embankment”.
A typical animation depicting relativity shows two people at a common point when two lightning flashes occur. One
person does not move while the other moves closer to one lightning flash. Obviously the moving person does not
see the events as simultaneous. Anyone who sees the animation should say: SO WHAT? A moving person saw
something different from a person who is just standing. Well according to the theory of relativity, the animation is
just one half of the picture. There should be another comparable animation showing the relative perspective from
the other person. That is what relativity is all about. It is not about the logical results of a person moving closer to
a flash of light. I have been told by supposedly well informed people that just half the animation is correct. If half is
correct, then so what? The result is obvious and does not represent relativity. The half animation does not address
Einstein’s problem with the w = c-v and W=v+w formula. It is just an animation that shows how a moving person
will get closer to an event. The reason Albert needed time and space to change is to deal with his problem of light
being relative to both the train and the ground while also being additive across both frames. Most of what I say
should be basically obvious to the casual observer once it is pointed out.
Now we will address the statement about the laws of physics being the same in any inertial or non-accelerated
frame. The statement has a major problem in that; everything is always moving. There is no such thing as a
stationary object. There is such a thing as one thing being basically stationary relative to another object. A person
standing on the surface of the earth is moving with the movement of the earth. The water in the ocean is moving
with the earth. Further, the water is impacted by the movement of the earth relative to other moving objects like
the moon and other planets. Every thinking person knows all that as fact. The laws of physics are the same
everywhere regardless of the movement of the frame of reference.
Future observation of past events:
We all know that when we observe the stars, we might be seeing light from stars that do not exist. They did exist at
some time and we are observing the conditions associated with that past event. Occasionally asteroids are discovered.
The path of one was projected to hit a planet at a specific time. It seems that kind of projection would be very hard to
accomplish if time and space had no meaning.
If a person stands on the surface of the earth and watches the horizon, that person will eventually see the horizon hide
the sun from view. We know that a straight line between the person and the horizon and the top ridge of the sun will or
did exist at some moment in time. That alignment did not exist when the person observed the alignment. When we
watch the sunset, we are watching the results of a past event, In fact, when we observe any event, we are watching the
results of what happened sometime ago. Although that seems like a very obvious statement, it is so profound that it
should be part of a foundation of a basic postulate of science.
Think about a person watching the horizon. At a moment in time and space, three points have a relationship. P is the
person, H is the horizon, S is the sun.
P-------------H--------------------------------------------S
01234567890123456789012345678901234567890
The conditions between the points existed. Those conditions change a moment later. The locations of the points in space
at that moment will always be where they were at that prior moment. Any measurements of the conditions of that past
moment will always and only be related to the past moment. At a moment later in time and space, the three points will
have some relationship. That relationship may be basically the same or it may be very different.
P-------------H--------------------------------------------S
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
Possibility 1 after the initial moment. All three points move in unison in some direction. Although it is not likely for three
separate objects to remain uniform in nature without a solid physical connections, it is possible. The person and the rim
of the earth will remain the same but the location of the sun will have changed.
P----------------------H------------------------------S
01234567890123456789012345678901234567890
Possibility 2 after the initial moment. Point P remained close to it’s original location. Point H moved from point P. Point S
moved closer to point P.
P--------H-------------------------------------------------------------------S
9876501234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Possibility 3 after the initial moment. Point P again remained close to it’s original location. Point H moved closer to point P.
Point S moved further from point P.
I listed three possibilities of movement of points P, H, and S. There are many possible combination of location changes of
a person, the horizon and the sun after a sunset. For thousands of years, people have been recording information about
the time the sun and moon are at different places in space throughout the many days and years. Various solar and lunar
cycles have been known for thousands of years. That should be very difficult to accomplish if time and space had no
meaning. The description of the changes are not relatively to any one particular point of reference because they can be
equally described from any point of reference. Thousands of years of observation from thousands of points show that
everything is moving all the time. We also know the observations have been made from thousands of locations and the
results correlate. The fact is; nothing remains at rest at a point in space at any time from moment to moment.
Although that seems like a very obvious statement, it is so profound that it is part of the foundation of a basic postulate
of science.
Relationship of moving objects
If the person watching the sunset were to throw a stone into a lake, the stone would make a ripple on the surface of the
water. Suppose that ripple arrives at the shore just as sunset occurs. If the person watching these events were to snap
a picture of the ripple on the water just before the sunlight was blocked, it could be a very good picture. Other than the
picture of the ripple and the sunset, there is no direct relationship between the two motions. There is a relationship
between the sun and the earth. There is a relationship between the earth and the water. A person watching the tide
move in or out is observing the impact of two or more isolated objects. The moon doesn't seem to be directly attached to
the water that is on the surface of the earth. The moon is attached through an unseen connection. So we see that the
movement of objects have both a direct as well as an indirect relationship or impact on the movement of others.
Although that seems like a very obvious statement, it is so profound that it is part of the foundation of a basic
postulate of science.
Different arrival time of observation of a single event
Suppose my wife and I plan to view the sunset. Several hours before sunset, the light we will view begins it’s rapid
journey to the earth. Suppose my wife gets a call and must go to visit a relative. Suppose she drives one hour west.
Later she looks at her watch and sees it is time for sunset at home. Suppose she calls me as I sit beside our lake
watching the sunset. As we talk on the phone, I tell her the sunset is really great. It is still one hour to sunset for her.
This is analogous to the moving train thought experiment in the Theory of Relativity. Time and space did not change
because she drove one hour while the sunlight was traveling to earth. It is obvious she must wait one hour for sunset.
The sunlight that began it’s travel sometime earlier will reach us at different times. It is obvious that the single
electromagnetic disturbance of the substance as it propagates through the universal magnet field according to
electromagnetic laws, at the limited identified speed (light), will not arrive at both of us at the same time because she
moved a specific amount of time and a specific distance while the light (the electromagnetic disturbance) was traveling.
The different arrival time can be identified because space and time is constant and measurable. If it were important for
us to see the very same pulse of sunlight regardless of our location, we could calculate the times we each would need to
observe the sun. Since we did not care about watching a specific blip of light, we do not need to calculate when the light
would arrive. Since we did want to observer the sunset together, she was able to check the sunset time table in the
news paper and then later look at her watch and call at the correct time to allow us to talk during sunset. So we see that
the movement of objects in time and space can be consistently measures and accurately predicted because time and
space are constant. Although that seems like a very obvious statement, it is so profound that it is part of the foundation
of a basic postulate of science.
NOTE: A prediction of Maxwell’s equations was that what we call light is an electromagnet wave. The agreement of the
results seem to show that light and magnetism are affections of the same substance, and that light is an
electromagnetic disturbance propagated through the magnetic field according to electromagnetic laws.
Galileo’s and Einstein’s laws of motion:
Galileo gave us his law that basically says: All speeds are relative to the speed of the observer. We know that new ideas
grow and any law may eventually change. As more information was developed, issues with Galileo’s law became
obvious. Many people contributed information and ideas that resulted in the eventual change to his law. Now we have
Einstein’s theories which give us a law which could basically be stated: All speeds except space and time are relative to
the frame of reference. Just as Galileo’s law was found to have problems, the same applies to Einstein’s theories and his
law. More people have gained experience and delivered more information. Eventually Einstein’s theory and laws will be
replaced with updated views. The biggest issue is to get people to realize that they have a splinter in their finger or are
making a mistake. They will feel so good when the splinter is removed or they correct their mistake.
Galileo’s law: All speeds are relative to the speed of the observer.
Einstein’s law: All speeds except space and time are relative to the frame of reference.
Complex relativity law: All objects are moving and all speeds of observable objects can be measured relative to the
speed and perspective of any number of observers in various locations and the results from observer to observer must
correlate. Note: this law includes light, space, and time.
The real Consequences of Special Relativity:
Earlier I said: “It is widely accepted that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and the speed of light is the same
everywhere. That believe is linked to Albert Einstein’s paper on the Theory of Relativity”. Those two sentences are
correct. Something is widely accepted and the belief is linked to a paper. Unfortunately, The paper does not say what
people have given it credit for saying.
I have shown that the theory of relativity does not say the speed of light is the same everywhere. It says: “the
transmission of light in a vacuum must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as
when the rails are the body of reference". That means it says the speed of light is relative (additive) to the frame of reference.
The theory of relativity does not say the laws of physics are the same everywhere. It says they too are relative to the
frame of reference. So what we have is what people think of the consequences of the theory of relativity.
What it says: The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
What people think it says: The speed of light is the same everywhere.
What it says: The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This
means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the
same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.
What people think it says: The laws of physics are the same everywhere.
What people think about light and the laws of physics being the same everywhere is correct. What they think the theory
says is not correct. The theory of relativity says those things are relative. The relativity portion is the problem. Sure
things are relative. We can predict the weather because of relativity. We have calendars because things are relative.
There is complex relativity for the motion of all things. The speed of light, the laws of physics, time and space do not
change from one frame to another frame of reference.
Degree of impact related to an objects influence.
Think of a river. If a person puts a stick in the river, there is a very slight ripple around the stick. If many people put a
dam across the river, there is a significant change to the flow of the river. Think of a puddle of water. If someone gently
puts a stick in it, there is no perceptible or measurable change. If someone drives a big truck through it, there a
significant change.
Think of an object suspended in a stationary magnetic field. Think of an object striking the suspended object. Think of
the speed of the stationary magnetic field that contains the suspended object. The stationary magnetic field is moving
some speed in some direction and it is impacted by other remote objects and the impact of remote objects is always
changing from instant to instant. This introduces a huge number of variables to any experiment. Which way will a
moving particle change it's movement when it is struck by another moving object. All the variables must be included to
accurately project the outcome. The galactic alignment can change the conditions of any experiment on earth.
Just as there are various types of water formations and methods of altering them, there are various aspects to the
universal magnet field and there are various ways the disruptions to the magnet field are initiated and then how they
propagate. Think of a bucket of rocks. The rocks could include coal, diamonds, granite, sulfur and Uraninite. One of the
rocks is most unique of all the listed rocks because of it’s higher level of interaction with the universal magnetic field. A
hunk of granite may be very big but a very small Uraninite rock emits much more radiation. Think of a black hole. That is
something that has a very big impact on the universal magnetic field. Size, movement and structure of one or more
objects are variables that impact the universal magnetic field and other objects will be impacted by those variables.
Although that seems like a very obvious statement, it is so profound that it is part of the foundation of a basic postulate
of science.
Disturbance movement
What we call light is one of the ways we see a disturbances of the universal magnet field. We still can not see the actual
field. Observations of the sun’s magnetic field indicates that it is considerable different than earth’s magnetic field. While
we know of the sun’s magnet field differences, we know less about the universal magnetic field differences. Think about
the oceans. The fluid dynamics in the oceans is very complex. There are rivers in the oceans. There are relatively dead
spots. There is reportedly a place in the Pacific ocean that has floating trash from throughout the pacific. The same
potential exists for the universe. There can be relatively dead spots in the universal magnetic field. Obviously there are
hot and cold spots in the oceans and in weather and in the universal magnetic field. If the old adage about every action
has an equal and opposite reaction is true, then the movement of what we call light has an equal and opposite
movement. That applies at the sending end, through travel and at the arriving end. Think of a bullet. At the sending
end, there is an obvious action. Through travel, there is a less obvious action but that action has been observed and
measures. At the receiving end there is a point of impact as the bullet goes through the target. Gravity, light and
bullets are not the same but the analogy applies. As any disturbance in the universal magnetic field originates, travels
and impacts a target, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It is obvious that the universe operates like a complex of interacting generators. Some of the generators are very big and
others are not so big. Still, all of them are interacting. They create various forms of the fields and various
electromagnetic disturbances. They include visible light, outside visible spectrum and gravity to list a few.
NOTE; The concept of energy emerged out of the idea of vis viva, which Leibniz defined as the product of the mass of an
object and its velocity squared. It seems this is where E=mc2 came from.
The Addendum to the theory of complex relativity: click here.
Copyright © 2007 2008 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
Complex Relativity
Introduction
Constant Space,
Constant Time,
Relative Light
Introduction
Constant Space,
Constant Time,
Relative Light
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
This update entry made on 12 February 2010:
After reviewing various experiments to measure the speed of light, I wasn't
able to find any that weren't round trip measurement relative to the moving
earth. That is; None of the experiments were on another platform that isn't
riding on earth or has a fixed relationship relative to earth. Thus, All round
trip measurements of the speed of light only confirm that the speed of light
is c relative to earth. None show the speed of a round trip for light relative
to a train going some speed on earth. None show the speed of a round trip
of light on a spacecraft.
Thus, we only have experimental evidence that the speed of light is c
relative to earth. We assume, without experimental proof, that the speed
of light is c relative to the train.
I did not update the paper to address the different experimental evidence vs the assumption,
made with out evidence.
After reviewing various experiments to measure the speed of light, I wasn't
able to find any that weren't round trip measurement relative to the moving
earth. That is; None of the experiments were on another platform that isn't
riding on earth or has a fixed relationship relative to earth. Thus, All round
trip measurements of the speed of light only confirm that the speed of light
is c relative to earth. None show the speed of a round trip for light relative
to a train going some speed on earth. None show the speed of a round trip
of light on a spacecraft.
Thus, we only have experimental evidence that the speed of light is c
relative to earth. We assume, without experimental proof, that the speed
of light is c relative to the train.
I did not update the paper to address the different experimental evidence vs the assumption,
made with out evidence.