Reality versus Special Relativity

The background of the following theory is based on two phenomena. One is an apparent inconsistency, strongly related to Newton's 'absolute rotation', with the basic postulate of Special Relativity, saying that all inertial systems can be considered to be at rest, which implies that all motion is relative.

Let me already now say that I do not oppose Einstein's relativity theory, the more as it is confirmed by observations. These observations however constitute the second phenomenon, in that all observations are conveyed to us through signals with finite speed. This means that the 'real' world, as it exists right now, is beyond any observation (the pain comes after the injury). A consequence of this is, that even though established physical theories are confirmed by observations, these observations themselves are not confirmed to reflect the 'real' world. This in turn means that "reality" not necessarily has to be in conflict with Special Relativity as such, but rather urges for a new theory that limits the validity of it within the framework of the observable world and that extends to describe the unobservable world.

In addition, a basic misunderstanding of "Relativity" seems to be just the word itself. The effects of Relativity only exist for one observer, relative an other (that's why it's called "relativity"). Hence, a moving object doesn't change its mass and dimensions and its time doesn't go faster or slower. It only appears so, for an observer who considers himself to be at rest (inertial systems). Naturally, otherwise the First Law of Thermo would be violated (speed can be relative, kinetic energy cannot).

Nevertheless, as a system that moves very fast relative an observer does get a different appearance for that observer than what an observer at rest in the moving system gets, it is the valid one when that observer interacts with this system. For example, a straight bar at rest in the (assumed) moving system becomes curved to pass through a smaller hole in an approching object, the plane of which also has rotated relative the other "resting" observer. Thus one would conclude that relativistic effects are real, making things happen that otherwise would not be possible. A good example of this is that muons, created in the upper layers of the atmosphere, actually reach Earth's surface, though they don't "live" long enough to do that.

Also from this we can conclude that the observable world and the real, unobservable world, are two totally different things - one can actually wonder if there is a real, objective, unobservable world at all? Actually, from Special Relativity we must conclude there isn't, because such a "real" world, would be an absolute one, which the theory denies, must deny, because of the invariance of the speed of light. On the other hand, "I think, thus I am", yes? Hence, where am/are I / we , what am/are I / we? We can illiustrate this with what "reality" looks like for observers in a huge rotating space station, as shown in fig.1

A ball B, hanging in a string, vertically 'above' an observer O. The circumferential speed of the rotating hull is V1 and so B has the speed V2, lower than V1. When the ball is released from the string in the shown position B, in that very moment, no more forces are working on it any longer and it will move along a straight path B-B' (1st Law of Newton). When the ball touches down in B', the arc B-B", that the end of the string describes in the same time and at the same speed V2, must then have the same length as the distance B-B' and for this, the hull has rotated over the angle a0.  So has the position of the observer O', still standing vertically under the string.  The length of the arc O-O' is thus longer than that of O-B' and the ball touches down at a distance O'-B' away from the observer.   [ a0 = tanaB   =>   a0 > aB ] Relative the observer, the ball fell down along the curved path B"-B', not vertically down, but touching vertically down at the speed V2', yet not bouncing vertically up with that speed, but at the angle a to the vertical (a impact = a bounce), at the speed V3 = V2 If we instead consider an observer throwing a ball straight up with the speed V2 in fig.2, the very moment the ball loses contact with the observer's hand, no more forces are working on it and it will have the resulting speed V in the shown direction. From geometry follows that its straight path B-B' is shorter than the arc distance O-B' and as it travels it with a higher speed than V1, it will touch down in B', before the observer gets there. Relative the observer the ball describes the shown curve from O' to B' - a juggler from Earth would have to learn his profession again. If the ball in fig.1 bounces fully elastically, basically the situation of fig.2 applies, with the difference that the ball does not get the component V1 of fig.2, but V2" instead (all seen relative the observer).

Depending on what direction the observer is facing, if the ball touches down ahead of him in fig.2, then it does so behind him in fig 1 (and vice versa). If we combine these two motions, to represent a diver, standing on the edge of a platform over a swimming pool, where he jumps straight up (fig.2) and then falls down (fig.1), his body will in principle move as shown in fig 3. If he's lucky he may just hit the water, if not, smash on the edge of the pool and get hurt (or worse). If we invert the situation, the diver and the platform facing the opposite direction, he will miss the pool completely and fall backwards on the platform instead.

Just imagine Newton would have grown up in a huge rotating space-station, say the size of the Moon, or even the Earth and be unaware of the world outside, his laws of motion would have become totally different. If the same would apply on A. Einstein, gravity and inertia would not have been equivalent for him. But then, relative what the space station is rotating? if there would be no reference (no other matter in the universe) it could not rotate at all. In fact, it could not even exist as it could have neither size nor motion of whatever kind. We could thus say that a rotating object is, or rather creates sort of an universe, with itself in the center of it - an absolute space, or rather more correctly defined as what is known as an inertial system, which in my belief is what gravity is all about.

Newton was right, rotation IS absolute!
(with this statement I have "disqualified" myself for being taken seriously, if it helps?)

Unfortunately, science doesn't deal with the unobservable world, for which reason I must emphasize that the theory that I will develop hereafter, is not a scientific work as per definition of science. Science deals with explanations and descriptions of phenomena, that can be verified through observations, which repeatedly always give the same result. Through this, science can prove a theory to be consistent with the "real world", by which it is correct or not. Physicists do not doubt that the real world is confirmed by their observations; metaphysicists however, can do.

For this reason metaphysics never have been acknowledged as science. In metaphysics there are no exact evidences by which a theory can be verified. A typically metaphysical description could therefore hardly be described in mathematical terms. As an example; if the metaphysicist would say that forces are not physical entities, but merely the measurable indication of mechanical actions at work, then this will not be accepted by the physicist, unless it can be mathematically described and ultimately verified by observations/experiments, that can be repeated with the same result.

The following theory is based upon the postulate that the real world does not exist in our world of observations. The real world is beyond any observation because it would take signals with infinite speed to observe it. For this reason, the following theory is a purely metaphysical one. Nevertheless, the background of it is pure physics.   Continue