How to REALLY Understand Relativity
without having to believe in unexplainable hypothetical 'cosmic principles'.
[Posts are sequential, to be read/heard in date order - opposite to the order they’re generally displayed in. Paid-for posts have technical content.]
Please pass a link to these posts to any friend you feel may be interested.
Click the arrow below to hear an audio version of this post (15.5 mins).
A. Special Relativity
Set aside any preconceived assumptions or handed-down folklore about ‘objective invariance of the speed of light relative to objects in different states of (inertial) motion’, or ‘constancy of the laws of physics in relation to all such moving objects’ [in the simplistic sense of Galilean or Einsteinian Relativity, in the latter case].
Recognise that particles of matter are formed from loops of electromagnetic energy - light - as shown by countless research studies and demonstrated empirically in 1997 at the Stanford (University) Linear Accelerator Center by the formation of matter-antimatter pairs from pure high-frequency light energy.
Recognise that the flow of time must be carried by the flow of this electromagnetic energy around and between material particles; it’s the only possible way that time effects could pass around and between objects. [This explains why the time component in relativity equations is multipled by c, the speed of light: time is moving at the speed of light, as it’s the flow of light energy that carries the effects of time.]
See that the formative energy flows creating the particles of a moving object are moving linearly through space with that moving object, as well as cyclically around the object itself. Note that this means the number of light-cycles per second around a moving object is less than for that object at rest, since some of that light speed is engaged in travelling through space with the object, instead of around that object. Note that this means the rate of time-effects within an object will be reduced when it’s moving as there will be less time-carrying cycles per second passing around its photon-based structure - time effectively slows down within an object when it’s moving.
Recognise that an object which is itself moving, and also has its time-sense slowed by the partially-linear element of its formative energy flows, will experience other objects (static or moving) and energy flows - light - from a spatially and temporally distorted perspective that give it a false impression of distances, times and speeds.
See the peer-reviewed journal paper, Elementary Sub-Atomic Particles: The Earliest Adaptive Systems, for details of points 4 & 5.
Check out my various free posts which explain clearly (with audio option) how these effects lead naturally to the various observed phenomena classified as aspects of Special Relativity: Unlocking the Mystery of Light, Light Speed: The Inside Story, Relativity Unmasked: How energy flows shape our experience of Reality. Also, for more in-depth technical detail, the premium posts: Time dilation in complex energy-flow structures, Quasiluminal: The Maths, An In-Depth Look at The Lorentz Transformation.
See how this breakdown into simple cause-and-effect explains every effect attributed to some metaphysical property of the cosmos, without the need for any such property or its accompanying counter-commonsense consequences: two clocks each running faster than the other, a train being two or more different lengths at the same time, etc, etc.
Finally, see if you can find any way in which these indisputable properties of matter and electromagnetic energy - light - are factored into the conventional view of observed effects, particularly at speeds approaching the speed of light. Those properties must be a key part of the story, any account of matter-energy interactions would be incomplete (and so invalid) without them - but they seem to be strangely absent from all conventional texts on Special Relativity.
B General Relativity
Note that the electric charge on any charged particle must be an artefact of the cyclic electromagnetic wave(s) forming that particle; this is apparent from the fact that interference patterns formed by streams of electrons, proving that they travel as waves, include the charges on those electrons (proving that the charge travels as part of each electron-wave).
Note that even ‘charge-free’ particles, such as neutrons, also carry elements of electric charge: a neutron is composed of a combination of positively and negatively charged quarks. Note also that even a single quark may split into a combination of positively and negatively charged parts (an oppositely charged quark plus an electron or a positron respectively) through the process of beta decay.
Recognise that these subatomic particles may be formed of electromagnetic waves giving a spinoff of just one type of charge (positive or negative) or a combination of energy threads giving a combination of positive and negative charge; the net charge on any particle will be the difference between the positive and negative elements generated as a by-product of these different threads.
Note that the infinite variety of polarisation states of electromagnetic waves can be narrowed down to just two states, right and left circular polarisation; all those other states are a combination of these two. It’s likely that those two polarisation states generate opposite charge effects, positive and negative - so the net charge on any particle reflects the mix of right and left polarisation in the photon(s) forming that particle.
Observe that this means the net charge on any particle will be a result of all the energy circulating in that particle: a heavier particle (such as a proton) may carry the same magnitude of net charge as a lighter particle (such as an electron) if the former is composed of a near-equal mix of right and left circularly polarised photon energy whilst the latter is composed of energy wholly formed from just one of those polarisation states.
Now observe that there’s no reason why, as is generally believed, the force of attraction (per unit charge) between oppositely charged particles is precisely equal to the force of repulsion between like-charged particles; the former could be infinitesimally greater than the latter (there are clear reasons why this may be so) - and this infinitesimal difference could be the effect that we refer to as ‘gravitation’.
Note that this possibility, coupled with the observations above, would mean that all of the energy in a particle - positive-charge and negative-charge threads - would contribute to the electrostatic interaction of this particle with another, whether of like net charge, opposite net charge, or zero net charge. Over and above the conventionally recognised electrostatic interaction (based on net charge on each particle) there would be a further interaction between every thread of energy in each particle, many orders of magnitude lower than that conventionally recognised interaction, with a net attractive effect between all particles. Both that vastly lower magnitude and the involvement of all of the energy in each particle (i.e. their respective total masses) are features of what is generally referred to as ‘gravitation’, as is the unvarying attractive effect in every case. This perspective is covered in detail in the peer-reviewed journal paper Cosmic System Dynamics. It’s also looked at in depth in the previous Substack post Gravitation: What’s the Big Attraction?
Note that the extended electromagnetic fields of the photons forming particles of matter are unlimited in their extent, reaching effectively to infinity - as is the case for all electromagnetic effects. Simple electric and magnetic fields can be blocked by, for example, a solenoid or a Faraday cage, but electromagnetic potential cannot be blocked, as well-proven in the Aharanov-Bohm effect. This results in the whole of space being permeated by electromagnetic potential from every element of matter in the the cosmos (diminishing with distance, of course). In this respect the universe is indeed holographic, in that every point in space is subject to interference effects emanating from every object in the universe: a hologram is an interference effect.
Consider that this gives the whole of space a texture, varying dynamically in time, which determines the behaviour of those electromagnetic constructs we refer to as matter, influencing the speed and direction of their motion. This gives the impression of some sort of curvature of spacetime, created by the energetic content (aka mass) of large bodies such as planets, stars, galaxies. See how this explains the observation by physicist John Wheeler that: “Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve”.
Note that this time-varying electromagnetic ‘texture’ of space explains all the effects of gravitation as documented in the Equivalence Principle, which equates being in a gravitational field with being in a state of acceleration.
In short, note that this fully causal explanation of gravitation, together with all of its effects, fills the gaping void left in conventional General Relativity (GR) theory by its total failure to provide explanations for even the most basic claims of that theory. Note that GR offers no causal explanation for the proposed ‘curvature of spacetime’ by large masses, nor what this means in real terms, i.e. how it directs the motion of material objects and light. This would appear to be a massive gap in the theory that supposedly explains the motions of all the bodies in the universe.
Consider for yourself which appears to be the most cogent and complete explanation of the various effects of gravitation: a proposed ‘curvature of spacetime’, for which no causal mechanisms are offered nor influences on matter or light described in clearly comprehensible terms; or an electromagnetic texture permeating the whole of the cosmos, resulting from the extended electromagnetic fields of all material objects (notably planets, stars, etc) and interacting with the electromagnetic structure of both matter and light.
Details of likely mechanisms for the interaction of this texture of spacetime (i.e. varying dynamically with time), together with info on how the Equivalence Principle works out in practice and other considerations such as gravitational negative energy and escape velocity, are covered in the next post: Gravity II: the Sequel - coming shortly.
In the meantime, be sure to check out Transfinite Mind for a wealth of free resources, including non-technical articles and presentations, as well as books to suit every level of scientific (or non-scientific) background.
If you find this post interesting or thought-provoking, please share it with others you know who may also find it of interest.