Relativity and Stationary Frames of Reference

“Relativity and Stationary Frames of Reference” seems like a contradiction to most scientists. A fundamental assumption in Einstein’s special theory of relativity is that all frames of reference are equally valid, and any observer can be considered to be a stationary observer.

Einstein’s assumption in the special theory of relativity, that all frames of reference are equally valid, is over-broad. For the mathematics of the special theory of relativity to work, a more narrow assumption would suffice. The only assumption that is necessary is that the speed of light is constant, regardless of the motion of the observer. It is not necessary to assume that other physical measurements are equally valid, regardless of the motion of the observer.

Narrowing the assumptions in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, it is now possible to consider the question: Is there such a thing as a stationary frame of reference, or could any observer consider himself to be a stationary frame of reference?

Let me give you the conclusion of the matter, and then I will explain the reasons for it: As soon as you assume that all frames of reference are equally valid, and any observer can consider himself to be a stationary frame of reference, then you end up with a mathematical contradiction in the special theory of relativity.

I am not the first one to bring this issue to light. As soon as relativity was published, scientists objected to the theory giving different examples preposterous conclusions from the special theory alone. When experiments demonstrated that light was bent by gravity, then the scientists were silenced. Many things in science are counter-intuitive, and it was thought that while it may not make complete sense, relativity must be true.

Mathematical contradictions still exist in the special theory when you assume that all frames of reference are equally valid. These contradictions are eliminated when you allow such a thing as a stationary frame of reference.

While I am suggesting that such a thing as a stationary frame of reference exists, it is very difficult to run experiments to determine what that stationary frame of reference is, or how fast we are moving through space with any degree of accuracy.

CNN posted an article – sorry, I do not have the link for it, where they stated that relativity was now under question, because measurements of time on satellites show that the earth is moving in space. This is to be expected when there is such a thing as a stationary frame of reference, but completely unexpected when you accept the assumption that all frames of reference are equally valid.

I have stated that there is a mathematical contradiction in special relativity when you assume that all frames of reference are equally valid. I can create a mathematical model which shows the contradiction, but that would be too lengthy and demanding for this forum. The mathematical model involves multiple observers moving relative to each other, and arriving at contradictory results, without changing their velocities. I would like to explain it with a story. Actually, the story is a take-off on one that was told shortly after relativity was published.

Two astronauts meet in space, perhaps away from any place where gravity would distort the results of their experiment. They synchronize their watches, and then speed away in opposite directions. Then they speed back and meet again. According to special relativity, each astronaut will think the other’s watch is slow. Even if they hold the watches side-by-side, they will remain in disagreement about the times on the watches.

As soon as you allow for a stationary frame of reference, the expected result becomes more rational.

What impact does this have on relativity? Actually, it is an adjustment to the theory. It does not demolish it. Relativity remains very accurate, even when you do not know what the stationary frame of reference might be. When we get a better idea of what the stationary frame of reference might be, then the most accurate calculations would take place by knowing that we are moving, and then taking our astronomical observations and determining how a stationary observer would see them.

General relativity is demanding enough, with the final conclusion of a rank three contravarient tensor equal to zero. The mathematics for relativity would become more complicated if we wished greater accuracy.

Many people believe that Einstein developed an entirely new mathematical model with the theory of relativity. This is not entirely true. Einstein relied on Newton’s equation, F=MA, in order to arrive at his most famous equation, of which e=m*(c squared) is a good approximation. I think we do not have accurate experiments on how Newton’s equation, F=MA, is affected by very high velocities, but this is a possible source of minor imperfections in the equation relating mass to energy.

If, indeed, Einstein’s equation relating mass to energy is extremely accurate (and I suppose it is), then you could get a measure of your own speed through space by determining how much energy you get when you convert matter into energy.

When a spaceship nears the speed of light, time slows down on the space ship, and it shrinks in the direction of motion, and the mass of the spaceship increases. There is one consolation, however. If the spaceship uses nuclear power, then the engines produce more energy as the ship goes faster. It is difficult to manage the additional energy. We will never have an opportunity to put these thoughts into a practical design anyway.