"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply:

Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.

To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

--

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).

--

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter, Replacing Albert Einstein’s General Relativity Theory

Anomalies in the behavior of matter, such as seen with the precession of Mercury, led researchers to look for the ether as the additional aspect that would explain the anomalies. Or, in the case of Albert Einstein, this led to appointing a curvature to Spacetime to explain the anomalies. This paper explains the anomalies based on an additional behavior of matter instead. The additional behavior of matter is known by all, but for some reason did not get incorporated into the prevailing scientific models.

When Albert Einstein published his General Relativity theory, he did not yet know about the materialization process, now commonly known as the Big Bang theory. That means that the behavior of matter based on the materialization process itself did not get incorporated in his framework. While Einstein will have reviewed this new Big Bang information for his General Relativity theory, he did not look for a mechanical explanation that would explain the anomalies.

What Einstein produced was a mathematical model to explain the anomalies (including predicting some outcomes that were not yet known). As such, the mathematical information is correct and is therefore not the subject matter of this paper. Instead, it is the explanation underneath the celestial outcomes that is distinct from Einstein’s gravitational model. A far more normal overall mechanism is proposed to be the reason for all behaviors of matter moving through space and that means that Spacetime can be discarded (though not the mathematical calculations).

The reason the mathematical information is correct, but the explanation of General Relativity is not, is based on the First Motion of matter. The Big Bang event produced a ‘sent-off’ action for matter. This means that all matter in the entire universe is on the move. There exists no matter that is at a standstill, and as such the lack of matter at a standstill should be understood as matter being a result, and how the materialization process itself produced that First Motion for all matter.

The amount of gravity in a galaxy that is required for a pure GR model is insufficient, and either the ether or dark matter are proposed to fill that gap. In the First Motion model, however, the currently known amount of gravity is exactly all the gravity there should be. There is no gap; there isn’t anything missing.

The specific point why Einstein’s mathematical framework is correct, but not the underlying reality, is that this First Motion action occurs in a ‘straight’ line through space. There is no gravity involved in this linear direction. Gravity is discovered only with the subsequent motions of matter.

· Second Motion: Circular motion of matter in a galaxy.

· Third Motion: Revolution of planets around their star.

· Fourth Motion: Spinning action of planets (moons in tow).

Therefore, the mathematical framework predicts the specific motions of matter, yet it does not explain why. While this may appear a minor aspect, it is a major aspect as this paper will show.

· Einstein’s GR uses gravity to fully explain the anomaly of Mercury’s precession.

· First Motion uses First Motion + Gravity to explain the anomaly.

--

To explain what is going on for a galaxy, and why less gravity is in play than required in GR, an analogy may help make this plain and obvious quickly. The analogy is that of 200 ice skaters. They are all skating in a group on a frozen canal. All are going at the same speed, in the same direction, in the same environment, at the same time.

Very clearly, one can see group activities, such as racing, pushing, hanging on to the strongest skater, playing, etcetera. Yet the vital aspect to understand is that the group is not skating as a group. In fact, the group is not skating as a group at all.

When an individual decides to stop skating, then the remainder of the group moves on. This shows that each skater is skating on his or her own power. There is no collective power for this group; the individuals are all doing the skating, and not the group.

For each of the 100 billion masses in the Milky Way, there is no option to stop ‘skating’. The First Motion that was put in place 13.8 billion years ago is on-going. There is no escape from this motion unless something specific interferes with the First Motion of a mass.

· All masses in a galaxy are moving in the same direction through space, at the same speed, at the same time, in the same environment.

That means that while there are collective behaviors noticeable and that gravity does play a role internally, the individual masses are not controlled by just gravity. The prime mover for each mass is applied to each mass and is not associated with the group.

There is no need to look for the ether or for dark matter, because the First Motion declares that there is just the amount of gravity required that has already been mapped fully. The group is a group because the prime mover of each of the individual masses is doing the exact same thing at the same speed, in the same direction, in the same environment.

--

This setup also indicates that the anomaly of Mercury’s precession can be explained by the specific aspects of First Motion in combination with the other motions. Note how this is a complexity and may take time to understand.

First an example of Sun, planet Earth and the Moon to warm up the mind.

These celestial bodies are like a truck, a car and a motorcycle, all speeding on the freeway in one and the same direction. The truck drives in a near-perfect straight line, whereas the car and the motorcycle going at the same speed also circle the truck (while the motorcycle circles the car as well). Their overall speeds are the same. They are on the same road, each driving the roadway by themselves.

· Important to note is that the Sun is not involved in the revolving actions that the planets are involved in.

The following is essential to understand: the Sun ‘sits’ in the center of the Solar System swirl and is not involved in revolving. Therefore, the planets show extra behaviors (revolving and spinning) that the Sun is not involved in.

Mercury is the planet closest to the central position of the Solar System’s swirl, while revolving and spinning. Not gravity, but the position in the swirling action of the Solar System is key. Keep in mind that all celestial bodies are moving at their fastest speed in the same direction.

To make the specific situation more understandable, one more analogy, this time about the Eye of the Hurricane. The closer to the Wall of the Eye of the Storm, the more an item will be swept up by the wind force. Meanwhile, in the Eye itself, there is no wind force. Where the center has a minimum expression of wind force, the location right next to it presents a maximum expression of wind force. There is no gradual change between this minimum and maximum, other than the gradual change in wind force when being further removed from the Eye of the Storm, from the maximum then to the minimum found much further out. The force is zero in the center, one right next to it, and then gradually diminishing toward zero again, at the edge of the entire storm.

The Sun is found in the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl. The Sun is therefore not affecting the precession anomaly of Mercury. It is Mercury’s specific location in the swirl that causes the anomaly to occur. It is closer to the Eye; Mercury is closer to the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl. It is affected disproportionately in its precession due to this closeness to the center (though not located in the center itself).

This visual from an article published in Nature (“Curved space-time on a chip”) is used to show Einstein’s GR with the gravitationally heaviest entity, the Sun, located in the center. The reason being is that the Sun does the curving that is then affecting the entity (be it either Mercury or for that article, photons) also shown in the image.

The same image can be used to show how First Motion + Gravity functions.

The Sun ‘sits’ in the center of the swirling motion of the Solar System. A requirement is then that the Sun is mostly made up of light-weighted materials, otherwise it would have been thrown out of this position a long time ago.

Indeed, while the Sun has amassed enormous amounts of material, hydrogen and helium make up most of the Sun. Despite heavier materials being present and despite the enormous amounts of materials being present, the Sun can be declared a light-weighted mass. It ‘sits’ in this central location because the light-weighted materials cannot get thrown out of that position.

One more analogy to make this easier to envision. The Sun is then like a very large but light-weighted ball ending up in a maelstrom in front of the Norwegian coast. This large ball cannot get pulled under due to its size and light-weighted essence, and it cannot go anywhere else because the maelstrom captured it. The Sun is physically stuck in place in the center of the Solar System swirl (Third Motion), while the entirety of the Solar System is on the move (in First and Second Motions).

Then, Mercury’s position should become obvious as well. Mercury is involved in Third and Fourth Motions (as well as First and Second Motions). The maelstrom is affecting the precession of Mercury; it becomes distinct compared to the other planets revolving around the Sun because the effects of the maelstrom play a role on Mercury whereas the maelstrom does not directly affect the specific behaviors of the other planets revolving around it. All other planets are located at a greater distance from the center of the Solar System swirl.

As visual aid, one can envision the behavior of a plane, its flight path mapped out on a flat screen or shown with the planet as backdrop. In one case, the straight line appears curved. In the other case, the line is straight instead. The interesting part is that the anomalies are not expressed like a flight path on the curved surface of a planet, but rather on the curved edge of the Wall of the Eye of the Storm.

Mercury’s anomaly is real, but in GR the reason is the Sun, whereas in FM+G the reason is found with the edge of the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl.

In both cases, GR or First Motion, the line is bent toward the viewer, and the effects therefore the same. Yet the GR model makes it all out to be as gravity based, and therefore ends up missing a large amount of gravity to explain how a galaxy is held together. In First Motion, there is no missing gravity.

--

A point to reiterate is how the model is complex and yet the various parts need to be understood as one model.

First Motion: Straight line of action (involving all matter). Not based on gravity.

Second Motion: Trajectory for Sun and Solar System. Gravity involved.

Third Motion: Trajectory just for planets in Solar System. Gravity involved.

Fourth motion: Planets spinning, moons in tow. Gravity involved.

· Each spinning, swirling reality will produce that Wall of the Eye, and this leaves a discussion about gravity wide open. That discussion is not part of this article.

Each swirling reality will produce a net-zero position in the center. Earth has its own spinning reality, stuck in the center of that swirling reality. The Solar System has the Sun stuck in the net-zero position. A galaxy’s center is more complex even still (but left unaddressed in this article as well).

The trajectory for planets is based on their own action in the larger Solar System setting with the Third Motion. Most planets are not pulled toward the center action of the First and Second Motions; they are far more involved in their own actions. Mercury, however, is placed in the position closest to where the First and Second Motion have their greatest influence. This becomes visible in the precession anomaly of Mercury.

--

A mechanical model explains all behaviors of matter moving through space.

Where Einstein envisioned two or three motions, he did not incorporate the most important motion, the First Motion. He left it out, even after becoming aware of it.

When models are not based on all motions, then researchers can claim that the ether is real or that Spacetime is a reality for matter.

--

Note once more how this does not involve any changes to the mathematical model. If the mathematical model is like a dog, then the issue discussed in this paper is about whether a dog wags its tail or whether the tail wags the dog. The dog itself is not the issue. The mathematical framework is not the issue.

Einstein’s GR is wagging the dog.

Ether is wagging the dog.

Dark matter is wagging the dog.

First Motion has the dog wag its tail.

--

First Motion is part of the Big Whisper model, which is a twin Big Bang model, yet it explains fully the behavior of matter through space and does so in a mechanical manner.

Fred-Rick Schermer

Reply to this discussion

Larissa Borissova added a reply:

Special Relativity is a partial case of General Relativity. The time in SR flows only with the velocity c along the surface of the isotropic (null) cone. The time is stopped only in the mment t = 0. SR does not include gravitational field, rotation and currvature as 4-space so 3-space.

Olivier Hakizimana added a reply:

Dear Abbas,

special relativity is very important when viewed from another angle (the coin paradox) than that of Einstein.

Article DIRECT PROOF TO THE YANG MILLS EXISTENCE AND MASS GAP (THE U...

Eric Baird added a reply:

Larissa Borissova , if you get SR physics as a partial case of GR physics, then you're doing GR wrong. (You're in good company - Einstein got this wrong, too.)

A proper general theory doesn't let us "switch off" gravity to get flat-spacetime inertial physics, because relativistic inertia requires inertia to be field-mediated, and "switching off" gravity also "switches off" inertia.

Eric Baird added a reply:

Abbas Kashani , Feynman's quantum vacuum drag calculations will be bad, because he'll only be doing half the calculation.

Javad Fardaei added a reply:

Feynman never observed electron, yet he predicted it, and prediction or write one-dimension static calculation for three-dimension of mature (atom) that it is changing (size, color, taste...) through temperature, pressure constantly is not science any way.

İrfan Kılıç added a reply:

Special relativity is not a word of truth!

Article The incompatibility of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity...

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_we_understand_special_relativity/1

- are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers