 Frequently Asked Questions

About

Flat Universe, No Space Contraction, No Time Dilation

( Last checked 2017/01/15 - The estate of Paul Marmet )
Go to: Next series of questions
Go to: Previous series of questions
Return to list of questions
Return to list of papers
Series #4  Flat Universe - and - Common sense
-----------------------
Question - (4-A)
Can you explain in words, what is the nature of the changes that have been introduced by Einstein, as a consequence of the theory of General Relativity?
A - Einstein introduced the Theory of Relativity because he wanted to explain the experimental data existing at that time. Theories existing at his time were not coherent. Einstein's suggested that space and time are distorted. His equations imply that "time" is another dimension similar to the coordinates X, Y and Z describing a classical volume of space. According to Einstein, one could transform space into time, and time into space, just as we change of coordinate when we turn left or right or move up or down.
Of course, mathematically, we can define:
Time = Space
And all is done mathematically. This equation means that we have decided that "Time" is identical to "Space". This is a mathematical postulate. However, even if we have decided mathematically that it is so, there is no guarantee that it is what really exists in Nature. Nature can have decided otherwise. Our mathematical definition is therefore mathematically correct but can be physically wrong.
In physics, dimensions are called: width, depth and height. With these three dimensions, all volume of space is fully considered without leaving any room for anything else. When we fill a bottle with a liquid, the volume of the liquid increases freely at the third power (and not the fourth) of the linear dimension of the bottle which corresponds to three dimensions.
We can add that all this three-dimensional volume of matter keeps existing as a function of time. However, the properties of time are "physically" different from the properties of space. Mathematically, in Einstein's theory, the mathematical sign in front of the parameter "time" (squared) is not the same as for space. It is negative. Finally, common sense shows that the physical meaning of time is different from the physical meaning of space. We must not be ashamed of using "common sense" in modern science.
Physics models are out of reach of mathematical models. These two fields are fundamentally different although they work together as counterparts. These two fields do not deal with the same fundamental principles. No experimental or observational apparatuses are necessary to do mathematics. However, observations or experimentation are absolutely necessary in physics.
-----------------------
Question - (4-B)
In the nineteenth century, physics used Newton's method. All physical phenomena could be explained with a mechanical model. That model was using diagrams to give clear illustrations and mechanisms whose components were functioning using plain logic. However, in the 20th century physics, "conventional logic" is no longer acceptable among the FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS of relativity and quantum mechanics. It is clearly rejected. Common sense is no longer considered as a valid argument, when explanations are looked for. Why should "common sense" be banned in an argumentation in favor or against a physical model?
A - It is well recognized that modern physics uses descriptions that cannot be represented physically. It has been said several times that nobody can understand relativity. This is not surprising since the physical interpretation of modern physics is not compatible with conventional logic and common sense. Only the internal mathematical relationships are.
Before the 20th century, the return to logic and common sense in Newton's physics gave an agreeable relax, following the mediaeval times when the alchemists did not bother to verify the coherence or the cause of the phenomenon observed. The scientific philosophy of the 20th century returned to the beliefs of the mediaeval age when alchemy was expanding. Conventional logic applied to physics, which has been used previously in science at different epochs by Aristotle, Galileo, Newton has been abandoned again in the twentieth century.
It is certainly a gross error (and much pride) to claim that it has been demonstrated that no realistic physical model can exist to describe Nature. This return to the denial of common sense is the most striking characteristic of modern physics (quantum physics and relativity) of the 20th century. It is confounding to discover that the 20th century science is applying the same occult principles in describing the basic principles of relativity (neither mass-energy nor momentum conservation) and quantum mechanics (with the Copenhagen interpretation). It took centuries of laborious work before achieving a logical level of fundamental understanding from which finally, Newton established logical arguments to explain physics.
In the twentieth century, the establishment does not allow to formulate any logical objection against the physical bases of relativity. That opinion is automatically rejected. One must then admit that Einstein's theory of relativity brings the twentieth century back to the mystifying power of occult sciences of the mediaeval ages. The most disconcerting observation is that, even famous "scientists" (like Richard Feynman) are proud (reference to Feynman in: "Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution" , chapter one) of having gone back to these primitive interpretations, claiming blatantly: "So I hope you can accept Nature as she is - absurd."
--------------------------------
Question- (4-C)
Does this mean that using common sense, (mass-energy conservation) we are led to abandon Einstein hypotheses? Is the universe simply mathematically flat? Therefore, all physical phenomena can be explained without space contraction and time dilation?
A - Yes. Certainly. All experiments and observations can be explained without Einstein's hypotheses. Einstein's hypotheses are useless. There are only three dimensions in space. All matter in the universe evolves in time, just as explained by Newton. Then, we can say that the universe is mathematically flat.
Let us recall that Einstein defines "Time" as what is shown on clocks. We have seen in the book: Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mecanics (chapter two) that, due to mass-energy conservation, when potential or kinetic energies are absorbed by the particles (electrons) of the atoms, there is a real physical change of clock rate. Consequently, it is not acceptable to believe that "Time" really changes its rate, just because clocks run at a different rate. Using Newton's mechanics with the help of the de Broglie wavelengths of matter, we must examine all physics effects that can be explained realistically.
--------------------------------
Question- (4-D)
In your book, you mention that all variations of clock rate and change of lengths (of rods) are calculated using the de Broglie relationship. Since this mechanism could be calculated around 1920 using quantum mechanics, and also that no new hypothesis is required, why does this explanation, leading to a change of physical length, not recognized previously?
A - It is surprising that this calculation, giving a natural explanation (to a change of clock rate and the change of length of matter), has not been done previously. Unfortunately, at the beginning of this century, it seems that physicists have given up hope of finding a logical realistic explanation. Einstein's relativity was accepted too rapidly.  As mentioned by Popper, it was claimed (and still is) that it is a final theory, and that physics has reached the end of the road! (see: Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution).
Of course, there were an acute need for Einstein to suggest a physical mechanism to explain his predicted "space contraction" and "time dilation". All sorts of bizarre explanations were suggested. Einstein could not find any physical mechanism explaining how space could dilate. Finally, it was recognized that no possible explanation was compatible with common sense. Common sense was then no longer accepted in argumentation. This became a dogma.
However, the de Broglie's mechanism was readily available to everyone. It is important to notice that the de Broglie mechanism is quite natural and leads naturally to length contraction (and dilation) without any new hypothesis. Even more, all the mathematics of quantum mechanics would be unsuccessful if the de Broglie's mechanism is incorrect. De Broglie's model and quantum mechanics render Einstein's hypotheses useless and superfluous. The recognized correctness of the predictions given by the mathematics of quantum mechanics must be considered as a excellent proof of the validity of a reality of  physical contraction and dilation of matter.
--------------------------------
Question - (4-E)
Is it correct to say that we must simply apply Newton's physics everywhere using proper units to calculate local phenomena?
A - Yes. This seems to be a fundamental law of Nature. We have seen above that in any frame of reference, the application of Newton's laws always leads to a correct answer. It is so, because we have taken into account that the units are changing when we change frame. Consequently, we see now that Newton's physics is invariant independently of the frame where we are located.  It is quite natural to use the units existing at the place where the phenomenon takes place.
Therefore, when we want to calculate what happens inside an external frame, we must calculate the real number of ALL the units existing in that other frame, before using Newton's physics. Then, after Newton's physics has been applied, the number of proper units calculated in the external frame can be transformed into the units of our frame. When using physical relationships, (Newton's equations) proper values must always be used. This leads to logical and correct predictions.
--------------------------------
Question - (4-F)
You say that a phenomenon cannot change because an observer (alone) is located in a different frame. Therefore it seems that a so called "relativistic" phenomenon should be observable on both the initial and the final frame. For example, the advance of the perihelion of Mercury must also be observable by an observer located on Mercury. Is this true?
A - Yes, of course. We know that there is an advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury around the Sun. This means that the direction of the axis of the ellipse rotates slowly around the Sun. Also, this means that when the direction of the axis of the ellipse is pointing in the direction of a given star at one time, the rotation of the axis of the ellipse is such that the axis will no longer point exactly in the same direction (toward the same star) after a rotation of Mercury around the Sun. This is true whether we are stand on Mercury, on Earth or anywhere in the universe.  This is a real physical phenomena.
However, this advance will be expressed using different units. One can calculate the number of units (seconds) measured on another frame, using the transformations obtained by the application of the principle of mass-energy conservation.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

New Choice of Questions

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Return to top of page
Go to: Previous Series of Questions
Go to: Next Series of Questions
Return to list of questions
Return to list of papers

Series #4        flat_universe.html         September 1999