Tuesday, January 18, 2011

A Problem with the Relativity of Time

According to Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity, time slows down more and more as a moving object reaches closer to the speed of light, at which point time stops completely, mass becomes infinite, and space contracts to a point in the direction of travel (all points come closer together). Following this reasoning, it has been popularly suggested, and even supposedly proven, that if a spaceship were to leave Earth and travel out into space at near-light-speeds for a period of time before returning again, there would be a measurable time discrepancy between the crew on the ship and the people on Earth, with the crew having aged more slowly than the people on Earth. We will refer to this as scenario A, where we have only two points of reference to contend with – that of Earth and that of the spaceship. This scenario is often used in explaining the strangeness of spacetime as it is understood within the Einsteinian framework.1

There is a definite problem with this understanding, however, and this problem can be seen more clearly when we reconsider the basic premise to the theory of special relativity, which is that all things – including time – are relative. This means that the time differentiation between the spaceship and Earth must necessarily affect both the crew on the ship and the people on Earth equally, rather than just the crew, as is commonly understood, and which is reflected in our description of scenario A. What scientists seem to have completely ignored is that if we can say that the spaceship is moving away from Earth at near-light-speed, then we can just as well say that Earth is moving away from the spaceship at the same speed. What is moving is relative to the orientation of the observer, and so the observers on the spaceship and on Earth must be equally affected. In other words, if the crew on the spaceship is aging more slowly relative to the people on Earth, then the people on Earth must necessarily be aging more slowly relative to the crew on the ship. The effect will be relative, rather than applicable from only one of the two reference points.

We can see the problem even more clearly if we consider this expected time differentiation in a slightly more complex scenario involving three relative points in space, rather than just two.

In scenario B, imagine yourself to always be situated at a point that is exactly halfway between the Earth and the spaceship as the spaceship travels away from Earth at near-light-speed. You are moving in the same direction away from Earth in your own spaceship at half the speed of the first spaceship, and so both the Earth and the first spaceship are effectively moving away from you in opposite directions at equal speeds. Eventually, the first spaceship turns around and begins to head back to Earth, and you also head back at the same moment, continuing to remain at an equal distance between the Earth and the spaceship until all of you are safely together again.

In this scenario, who is getting older? For who does time slow down, and by how much? If we consider the outcome of this scenario from the standpoint of each reference point, we will begin to see the problem with the commonly accepted understanding of time displacement.

1) From the standpoint of the people on Earth, the crew on the first spaceship ages slowest, while you age faster than them but slower than the people on Earth, who have aged normally.

2) From the standpoint of the crew on the first spaceship, the people on Earth age slowest, while you age faster than them but slower than the crew of the first ship, who continue to age normally.

3) From your standpoint on the second spaceship, both the people on Earth and the crew on the first spaceship age equally slowly while you age normally.

Seen in this context, the people of Earth would see themselves as having aged the most and the crew of the first ship having aged the least. The crew on the first spaceship, however, would see themselves as having aged the most and the people of Earth the least. Both of these groups would agree, however, on how little you have aged. You, in turn, would see yourself as having aged the most and the people on Earth and the crew of the first ship having aged equally less. Confusing? Yes. Likely? No.

This shows that the common understanding of time displacement is obviously in error. In scenario A, the crew of a spaceship that is traveling at near-light-speed will not age more slowly than the people back on Earth. Both will age at the same rate no matter at what speeds the spaceship travels or for however long. Scenario B reveals this fact, and further consideration of the concept of relativity will reflect it as well.

The common understanding of time displacement is at fault because it does not take into account the fact that the movement between a spaceship and Earth (or any other two reference points) can be viewed from the opposite perspective (as in scenario A), with the Earth speeding away from the spaceship, rather than the other way around. In this view, the people on Earth can be said to be traveling at near-light-speed relative to the crew on the spaceship, and can thus be said to be aging more slowly than the crew.

The common understanding appears to be accurate only because we tend to think that Earth is somehow at a stationary point in space, and forget that it is actually moving at great speeds as it orbits the Sun, which in turn orbits the galaxy, which is itself cycling through its own course in space. In effect, nothing is grounded to a central or fixed point where time can be said to be ‘regular’, and by which all other points of time can be measured.

The experiments that have been used to try to prove time displacement (within the commonly accepted understanding) are also at fault. These experiments, such as the one performed by Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating in 1971, involve two atomic clocks – one placed at a stationary location on Earth, the other placed on a jet that travels around the Earth at a high speed for a certain period of time. The clocks are synchronized at the start, and then compared after the travel time is concluded. Although the expected time displacement would be extremely slight, since nothing nearing light speed can be achieved and the displacement will be proportionately less, the results seem to reveal that displacement occurred. Or did it?

The problem with this experiment lies with the atomic clocks themselves. These clocks rely on the half-life of a radioactive material such as cesium for their precision, and are generally very reliable, but they do tend to show slight variance between each other. This is evidenced by the fact that the atomic clock used to keep global time (the clock we use to set all other clocks by) has had to be reset a number of times over the years. We must also remember that the reliability of these clocks is dependent on the probable statistics of the random decomposition of the radioactive material, which means that as we deal with smaller periods of time, greater chance of random fluctuation in the decomposition will occur, making displacement effects seem to appear between different clocks. An overzealous scientist may inadvertently misinterpret those displacements that tend to support favorable results. Also, there are possible effects that gravity may have on radioactive decomposition rates, which could effectively cause the clock in the lower gravity of the upper atmosphere to decompose at a different rate than one in a higher gravity. None of this seems to have been taken into consideration.

Further consideration of the misunderstanding that time displacement would be one-sided, as it is commonly understood, leads to the realization that if such one-sided displacement is accurate and time slows only for the crew on the spaceship (as in scenario A), then by the same line of reasoning, our moon and anything on it must be aging more slowly than we are, and we, in turn, are aging more slowly than our sun, which is itself aging more slowly than the center of our galaxy.

Apart from all of this, there is also a problem with the idea that mass becomes infinite when traveling at the speed of light, as Einstein’s theories propose. If photons acquire infinite mass, this would cause them to draw other matter to them due to their increased gravitational force. Not only that, but they would hit objects with the force of a freight train. There is also the question of how a photon can possibly be captured within the electron shells of an atom and suddenly stop, if photons have no intermediate velocities. There are undoubtedly answers to these questions, but they are inadvertently convoluted and based on other predetermined understandings that seem to support them, and in the process of this they effectively make this area of science into an arcane field of study, and this will persistently raise the need for further convolutions of understanding in the future as further problems within this framework are encountered.

Einstein based his theories on mathematics, and composed formulas such as the famous E=mc2 to define and describe physical reality in a way that was meant to accurately correspond to it. Theories are written first and tested for accuracy later, so Einstein was only able to assume that he was accounting for all the physical variables and constants relevant to describing reality in mathematical terms. The reliability of any such formula depends on whether it takes into account every relevant factor in expressing a physical event. The certainty that all possible factors regarding physical realty are already established, when expressing reality through mathematical formulas, can never be completely assured. This is because until that relevancy is actually known, the need for such a factor is absent, and its value is simply incorporated into one or more of the other factors involved.2 But how do we know there is a need for another factor if we are ignorant of its relevance? The simple truth is that we don’t. Only time can tell as a theory is tested for its accuracy. If a theory poses a paradox, as Einstein’s theory of relativity certainly does, then there must be a missing factor that needs to be accounted for. The paradox of time displacement, as explained by the theory of relativity, poses questions that suggest there are empty categories that need to be filled. At least so far as we are to believe that any part of the scientific framework is absolute, and accurately reflects an equally absolute physical reality.

Our consideration of science has primarily been to point out the actual frailty of its underlying framework of understanding. We have discussed only a few of the many problems within this framework, with our main intention being to show that physical reality does not exist a priori, already rendered absolute before consciousness was ever able to emerge to experience it.

We can see from our review of science that physical reality is not really as absolute as we generally perceive it to be. Aspects of it arise to meet our expectations, but at the same time, many of them remain elusive to perfect unified understanding. Still other aspects – the majority of them – are no more than beliefs, having never actually been witnessed by anyone other than the scientists who give us their definition of what they have measured or observed in their laboratories, or calculated on paper.

When a new level of understanding is reached and is solidly accepted collectively, even without any physical evidence to precede it, events tend towards fulfilling its actuality – at least for the collective. This is the causal force of mind at work, and it is behind Nature’s very form and function.

The high cabal of the scientific establishment either knows of the power of this directive force and is trying to keep it undercover while taking advantage of it for themselves to maintain control over the rest of us, or they don’t know this and are just floundering to retain the inaccurate scientific understanding they have so heavily staked their careers on. It may seem very unrealistic to the average reader at this point that a high cabal within the scientific community is intent on or even capable of misleading us to any extent and thereby limiting our understanding of ourselves and our world, but bear with this for the moment. There is much more to consider before any immediate conclusions should be drawn. It is important, however, to raise the issue early on regarding the possible suppression and control of such knowledge and power. A great deal of evidence exists to indicate that this is the case.

The builders of such megalithic structures as the Great Pyramid at Giza in Egypt and the mountain-peak city of Machu Picchu in Peru undoubtedly had a working knowledge of the directive force that consciousness has on physical reality. There is evidence to show that this knowledge originated from the Atlantean or Lemurian civilizations, and it was likely preserved as part of the esoteric wisdom of the secret schools that later arose in Egypt, Asia, and India. This would have undoubtedly been a closely guarded secret that only the highest ranking of the priesthood was privileged to possess. This directive power may have been only partially understood, and only through certain limited methods of application, such as divination practices and incantation rituals. But the fact remains that these ancient men of knowledge were capable of feats that we still cannot explain or duplicate with our modern understanding, and this suggests that there exists, or once existed, certain knowledge that defies our current scientific framework.


1 It is because of this apparent time discrepancy that it has been seriously considered as a possible way for us to travel through time, if we were able to move faster than the speed of light. However, because the speed of light is believed to be an unsurpassable barrier, it is believed that time travel is impossible, and even interstellar space travel is impractical due to the immense distances that would require years to traverse even at light-speeds.

2 In the case of the zero-point field, this extra quantum energy showed up in mathematical calculations but was subtracted out in order to make the calculations correct, until the meaningfulness of it was established and it became an important factor.

No comments:

Post a Comment