Relativity and Relativism  

By Stan Sholar

Relativity 

As some of you know, I am amongst several who believe that there are mistakes in Einstein's theory of special relativity.  Correcting the major mistake only requires revisiting one of his assumptions and making a better choice.  As with all theories, Einstein had to start with some things that cannot be proven, so as to develop from them a theory with results that agree with what we observe.  To get results that agree with the theory's extensions and conclusions is necessary for things to hold together, but this is never sufficient.  If one exception is found, then all bets are off.  I believe that an exception was found with the discovery of the Sagnac effect, which is as old as Special Relativity itself.  Even today, after a century of trying, there has not been success in using Special Relativity to explain this effect, which though having an esoteric name, is quite familiar with aerospace engineers using gyroscopes operating on the principle, leading to ring laser and fiber optics instruments.  The list of examples of exceptions is increasing.  However, to challenge special relativity is heresy for almost all physicists in universities, government, and most of industry.  They easily point to the successful predictions, such as the growth in length of a rod in the direction of its motion, without reminding themselves that this has never been measured in the laboratory (though likely true).  There is a concomitant effect on contraction of time that not only has been measured; it necessitates adjusting clocks in the GPS navigation satellites so that they give a more accurate answer.

Fundamental to Einstein saying that the speed of light is constant when observed by anyone moving along in a frame of reference, without accelerating, is the conclusion that there is no sense to the question, moving relative to what?  We have for example two frames that are moving "relative" to each other.  Is A moving relative to B, or is B moving relative to A?  This does not make sense much for the answer from relativity is "both of the above."  Is there any more stationarity associated with one frame versus another?  Relativity says no.  For it to be otherwise would require that somewhere in the universe of things, there is a reference frame that is universally stationary, and all other frames move relative to it.  So we have from special relativity's fundamental assumption that no such universal frame exists.

Nevertheless, we have to deal with frames moving relative to each other and experience shows that the laws of physics that are found to be true in one moving frame, are true in any other that is moving at a constant velocity with the first inertial frame.  Thus the second is also an inertial frame and we can do our physics in it, independent of knowing about the other frames that may be moving here and there.  It is important that to be an inertial frame, there cannot be any rotation, for this involves centrifugal acceleration and takes the problem outside the restrictive assumptions of special relativity.  But for practical purposes we look to the distant stars as a source reference or a backdrop for no rotating motion.  If we point to the stars, or a few particular ones with stellar star tracking telescopes, we can establish an orientation that helps us invoke an inertial frame.  In launching a rocket from the earth, clearly the platform is moving due to many things, the earth's rotation about its axis, the revolving earth moving in an orbit about the sun, our sun's motion within our milky way galaxy, and even our galaxy's motion amongst the apparent behaviors of distant galaxies.  So we set up some form of approximately inertial reference frame to deal with the course of a rocket as it flies to another point on earth, into orbit around the earth, toward the moon, distant planets, or as in the case of Pioneer 10 and others, escapes the solar system.  One such example is ECI for Earth Centered Inertial.  At the moment the rocket is launched this coordinate system, centered at the earth, is established with a constant orientation to the distant stars and does not rotate with the earth.  Neither does it remain attached to the center of the earth, which is on its own orbit around the sun.  It maintains a fixed position, frozen in time and space, relative to the sun at the moment the rocket lifts off.

So there is a large amount of successful experience in dealing with such things, but this experience sort of side steps the issue of whether or not there is a universal stationary frame.  We invoke this approximately by doing things such as those described in the last paragraph.  An amazing thing was observed when the COBE (Cosmic Background Radiation Experiment) satellite sent back data.  This radiation is at a very low level but it is not completely uniform in direction.  From our point of observation on earth the radiation at points in space is more in some directions than others.  If we do things properly, we can establish a frame of reference, that is certainly moving relative to the earth and other things, but that causes this cosmic background to radiate equally in all directions.  At least that is what would appear if we as an observer would move into this other special reference frame.  Since it appears that this unevenness or anisotropy is the same at all the places we gathered data, then the frame that makes it all isotropic could be the vestige of a universal stationary frame.  Now conventional science, with sworn allegiance to special relativity, otherwise at risk of being career limiting, must find other ways to explain this COBE finding.  Else they must dump special relativity, which seems to be supported by other data.

The thing that attracted me to exploring alternatives is that adopting an attitude of the existence of a universal stationary frame does not require throwing out the baby with the bath water.  The contractions of time and length are still results of this alternative approach.  But in addition, there are answers to questions such as who is older, twin A or twin B.  We get contradicting answers from relativity depending upon which twin we remain with and what both did.  This is clearly a paradox.  It has been around as long as relativity, but people seem to accept it as part of the mystery.  Many have attempted to resolve it with fanciful schemes accounting for acceleration (excluded from special relativity applicability) but none stand up to critical review.  If we get into a universally stationary frame, we note the ages of both A and B, predicted by the relativistic transformations applied to the motions of each, measured relative to the stationary frame.  We get a precise answer to the question of which twin is older and there is no ambiguity and no paradox.

The universal frame allows of course for the constancy of the speed of light, but it is measured relative to that frame.  In all others that are moving inertially, the speed of light as observed by anyone in those frames depends upon how that frame is moving relative to the universally stationary one.  It may be greater or it may be less.  When we measure the speed of light, we are normally restricted to the round trip time.  Einstein says just divide the round trip time by 2 to get the one-way velocity.  By biasing clocks according to this principle, he can accommodate his assumptions and gets transformations that work in moving frames, but for the wrong reasons.  An example of where things break down would be the Sagnac experiments, which have recently been extended to linear, not rotating, motion now, and come under the presumed aegis of special relativity in that there is no acceleration.

The truth of relativity is widely accepted in spite of some experimental evidence raising doubts.  Its main drawback as discussed here is the assumption that there is no absolute standard of reference.  We can note a parallelism with the concept of relativism in socio-religious dogmas.

Relativism

Just as Einstein advanced a theory of relativity based upon unprovable postulates, there are philosophers like Hume, Sartre, and many earlier and later, that advanced an idea known as moral relativism.  There are many ways to characterize this form of relativity, such as postulating that there is no objective standard for morality and that the universe of truth is unaffected by and indifferent to our preferences and troubles.  Once the position is taken that there is no absolute in morality (like no stationary reference frame in relativity), then the results lead to a form of philosophical quagmire with untenable contradictions like the twin paradox in relativity.  Just as we cannot answer the question of which twin is older, in moral issues, we cannot ask the question which twin is the more moral.  In fact the argument takes on such results as A is OK relative to himself, and similarly for B.  Social scientists question whether there can be any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values.  This leads to differing systems having equal value.  Another aberration is pluralism where alternative mores have mutual conflicts but this is OK.  This and other forms of anti-absolutism lead to the idea that morality is entirely subjective and personal, and beyond the judgment of others.  Still another form, the metaethical relativist maintains that all moral judgments are based on either societal or individual standards, and that there is no single, objective standard by which on can assess the truth of a moral proposition.

We have given scientifically observable facts that are repeatedly verifiable (in special relativity and for example ethics and morality).  We have two theories, one denying an absolute reference, leading to totally relative frames as the only alternative, the other based on an absolute frame.  In sociology we also have verifiable facts, but there are fundamental disagreements about what ought to be done based on societal or individual norms, and these cannot be adjudicated using some independent standard of evaluation, for the latter standard will always be societal or personal and not universal, quite unlike the standards used in physics and the scientific method.

Some philosophers have ascribed to man an inherently good nature in the sense that morality can be a natural result of an inborn driving force in man.  Ayn Rand believed morality is derived from man's exercising his unobstructed rationality.

None of these approaches really get it for they do not recognize that, just with special relativity, there is a morality based on an absolute reference frame.  Moral knowledge can be based upon and derived from the revelation of the doctrine of the Creator of the universe.  This was given to mankind through the Bible. 

If one believes that there is a God but there are many paths up the mountain in pursuit of him, all equally effective, this form or relativism actually contains a hidden absolutist foundation.  Just as our universal observer in the physics setting is the only one who can see what is really going on in all the moving frames, the very idea that the multiple paths to God can be observed means that there is a universal observer!  Is this the relativist?  Why does only the relativist get to see the entire mountain and none of those trudging up its sides?  How did Einstein get to see it all?  The fact is that he didn't, and his religion of claimed immaculate perception denies all other perspectives.

We are all absolutists in a sense; it’s just that our fundamentals are different.