### An Analysis of the Theoretical Foundations of Special Relativity

**An Analysis of the Theoretical Foundations of Special Relativity
**Copyright © Walter Babin

**Zitat:**

The concept of the relativity of time, space and simultaneity as specifically proposed in the Special Theory is proven to be logically untenable. It is shown that assumptions regarding absolutism or relativism cannot be substantiated within the context of the two postulates and that a re-interpretation of the constancy of the speed of light effectively accounts for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

1**. INTRODUCTION **

The Special Theory has withstood the scrutiny of countless investigators over the past ninety years and has become one of the intellectual cornerstones of modern physics. Despite this, it is contended that the kinematic aspects of the theory contain a number of serious philosophical and logical inconsistencies which effectively nullify it as a basis for dynamic considerations. Among these are the unsatisfactory interpretation of the first postulate, the arbitrary limitations imposed on the means to determine synchronism and simultaneity, and the total exclusion of one-dimensional aspects in the justification for, and calculation of space-time modifications.

**2. THE SPEED OF LIGHT **

In his original paper on the Special Theory (1.), Dr. Einstein confirms the Galilean equivalence of inertial frames of reference and adds a second postulate which states –

*„…light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [ c ] which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.“ *

There is at least an implied ambiguity in this postulate since he later states –

*„Any ray of light moves in the „stationary“ system of coordinates with the determined velocity [ c ], whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body“ *

We may therefore identify two possibilities regarding the convection of light. It may be assumed an universal constant independent of all frames of reference, or conversely, it may be assumed to propagate at a constant speed in any direction only within the observer’s frame of reference. In an Euclidean (isotropic) space-time continuum, the former would result in compound velocities for a frame of reference moving relative to the beam unless contraction-dilation effects were introduced. The latter possibility requires no such modifications, but does not preclude same. It should be noted that in either case, **light can only be measured in the observer’s frame of reference. **

It is further stated by Dr. Einstein that a common time for coordinates A and B occupying the same inertial frame and separated by a distance cannot be defined unless it is established by definition that the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time from B to A. Since experiments to accurately determine the speed of light have, to this point, been averages of two-way motion, this arbitrary definition is of no practical use unless an Euclidean space-time continuum at absolute rest is assumed. Averaging is confirmed by Dr. Einstein since he states –

*„In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB / ( t‘ A – t A ) = c to be a universal constant- …“* , (where t and t‘ are the initial emission and final arrival time at point A.)

**Note that with variable space-time and averaging, there is no conceivable way that a quantitative evaluation of the „universal“ speed of light can be made. **As Newton stated some three centuries ago (2.),

*„Wherefore, entire and absolute motions can be no otherwise determined than by immovable places; …“ *

The Minkowski substitution of an abstract, supra-ordinate continuum for the fixed ether may be adopted but this is excessively metaphysical and beyond any experimental verification. It should therefore be patently obvious that a presumed **universal constancy for the speed of light is meaningless without an equivalent designation for time and space.**Lesen Sie bitte weiter unter:

**(Zitatende)
**

Lesen Sie bitte

**hier**weiter!