Absolute Space and Time Theory With No Length Contraction

Bumping this thread as it has relevance to a more contemporary thread.

Threre is no need to change the equations of special or general relativity to build a model of space end time that is fundamentally absolute.
If you have an equation you can freely move terms from one side of the equal sign to the other, you just have to change the sign from plus to minus and vice-versa.
Just doing so, special relativity is called euclidean special relativity, general relativity is called four dimensional optics 4DO. No length contraction and no time contraction in euclidean special relativity.
Therefore there are new interpretations of experimentally valid equations.
As an example here we have one of the many papers on this subject:
arxiv.org...
The nature of time is discussed here, as an example:
www.chronos.msu.ru...
The main picture is that we have four space dimensions, and time is represented by a universal speed, the speed of light.
Take your time to read these two papers (among many) and you will understand how it has been done.
This is not a secret at all ! It is simply non mainstream, i.e. journals do not talk to the wide public , but published research is ongoing.

a reply to: Dineutron

Thanks for commenting. I looked into the papers you referenced. What follows below is similar to what I would write if I were reviewing, except I've been more liberal with my own opinions since this is a forum and not a review. (I reviewed works on relativity for a couple of decades.)

The Four Space-times Model of Reality:
1) Fontana states "baryon matter (consisting of strongly interacting fermions like protons, electrons and neutrons)". Perhaps this is a typo, but electrons are not baryons, nor do they interact strongly. Such a statement will distract readers into thinking the author may be a novice.
2) Fontana brings in multiple, overlapping coordinate systems and asserts we live within just one of them. It is certainly fine to propose anything at all. However it is my view that we live in a universe with three spatial dimensions measurable with meter sticks, and that time is the quantity that orders events and it is measurable with clocks. To me, space and time are very different things. It is my view that ideas such as unified space-time, curvature of that space-time, and even more so, multiple additional dimensions, are simply mathematical fantasies that are thrown in to explain things that so far (prior to my work) have not been explained with a far simpler space and time underpinning.
This is not to say that it is impossible that there are other dimensions. Indeed, a popular pastime over the past century has been to add as many free parameters into our theories as needed in order to achieve a mathematical map to experiments. This can be useful, but it likely lacks an appreciation for what actually exists. Whether we add the free parameters through the many terms and fitted constants of the standard model, or if we do so by adding multiple dimensions, we can map to experimental results, but it is my belief that a proper understanding of nature will result in far fewer required fundamental constructs to base our physics on. (And I prefer a physical model to a mathematical one.)
3) "It is due to Special Relativity that the difference originates between space and time." No, I would say most ten year olds are aware of the difference between space and time, and probably have been since antiquity. Instead, it was relativity that began to blur the distinction between space and time.
4) "Special Relativity (SR) has been developed to mathematically describe the observation that the speed of light is the same for all observers. This fact led to the dismissal of Galilean transformations in favour of the Lorentz transformation." The first sentence is acceptable; the second sentence has problems. The Lorentz transformation was developed by Lorentz and others prior to the advent of SR.
5) "It became obvious that space and time were both part of a single entity named space-time". Obvious? To whom? Maybe mathematicians, but I believe it is rather universally obvious (outside of sparsely populated academic circles) that space and time are two separate things.
6) "SR predicted the relevant properties of time dilatation and mass increase." Time dilation yes, but there is no mass increase. Both Einstein and Lorentz made this same error in their papers, calling out a transverse mass of gamma*m and a longitudinal mass of m*gamma^3. But then we don't have one mass anymore. A better interpretation is that mass is just the "rest mass" m0 and that F = dp/dt, where p = gamma*m0*v. In such a formulation you will pick up kinematic factors of gamma, but you can stick to a single mass m0.
7) "tau being a measure of the distance, named proper time.". Well, tau is only a proper time if the four-vector is time-like. If the four-vector is space-like, then tau would be a proper length. This seventh point has ramifications for what follows in the paper.

In my earlier years of reviewing I would have slowly worked through the rest of the paper, but in later years I realized that with so many rather significant issues I should just pass the initial comments back to the author for more work. In many cases the author would start anew, because the author would agree that there were shortcomings in the original approach and he or she would thank me and we'd move on to a substantially new draft. On other occasions the author would write back berating me as a simpleton that was not able to understand the brilliance of their work. In ALL cases, I would keep an open mind and the author could either correct what they agreed were errors, or, explain better why they weren't errors (in their opinion) in the next draft. Either way, this would strengthen the work, and we could move on to review the next draft. And I would almost always encourage next drafts, as sometimes the authors may have had a germ of a good idea, despite the obvious flaws. In any event, that is enough for the Fontana paper "The Four Space-times Model of Reality" for now. I skimmed a bit further, and it seems to have more problems along the lines of what I've already mentioned. It certainly is far from my view of what space and time are. (Of course I am willing to consider other viewpoints, but as already mentioned I don't think they are very helpful.)

I tried downloading the second paper you mention, and see it is also by Fontana, but this time my browser warned me it should not be downloaded as it might have content that would damage my computer.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Dineutron

Thanks for commenting. I looked into the papers you referenced. What follows below is similar to what I would write if I were reviewing, except I've been more liberal with my own opinions since this is a forum and not a review. (I reviewed works on relativity for a couple of decades.)

The Four Space-times Model of Reality:
1) Fontana states "baryon matter (consisting of strongly interacting fermions like protons, electrons and neutrons)". Perhaps this is a typo, but electrons are not baryons, nor do they interact strongly. Such a statement will distract readers into thinking the author may be a novice.

Tried to check this part:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

I read “baryon matter” in Fontana’s paper.
Could be a typo for baryonic matter, adopted along the paper.
In any case barionic matter is common everyday matter, that includes electrons.

Could be nice if parallel worlds are real !!

originally posted by: Dineutron
I read “baryon matter” in Fontana’s paper.
Could be a typo for baryonic matter, adopted along the paper.
In any case barionic matter is common everyday matter, that includes electrons.

Yes, I'm very familiar with the common term "baryonic matter" used in cosmology, and it is used to refer to atoms in the context that they are primarily composed of baryons (Larson is correct that electrons are not baryons but they comprise a small portion of the mass of the atoms).

So when I read “baryon matter”, I assumed he meant baryonic matter but I don't know why he didn't use that more generally accepted terminology. The fact that "matter" was appended to the term baryon is a pretty good clue though that he wasn't talking about baryons specifically and that does make it sound a lot more like baryonic matter. I looked up a similar Peebles paper from 2003 (he referenced Peebles in 2003 but that specific paper wasn't on arxiv) and Peebles uses the term baryonic matter in this 2003 paper, sort of:

Interacting Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Amen- dola & Tocchini-Valentini (2002) point out that the fifth force in the dark sector might have a substantial effect on the relative distributions of baryonic and dark matter

So that paper is referring to yet another paper referring to baryonic matter in the context where that term means more or less the matter we know, composed primarily of baryons, as opposed to dark matter, a small portion of which may also be composed of primarily baryons (such as the Earth, for example) but studies show the majority of dark matter is not baryonic.

The point is that baryonic matter is a commonly used term that I see a great deal in my research, so I found it hard to quibble with that part of Fontana's paper. However large portions of his paper left me scratching my head.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
3) "It is due to Special Relativity that the difference originates between space and time." No, I would say most ten year olds are aware of the difference between space and time, and probably have been since antiquity. Instead, it was relativity that began to blur the distinction between space and time.

When I was 10 years old, I knew that 2+2 equals 4, and I probably also knew that velocities can add so if I was walking 2mph and threw a baseball in the same direction at 2mph that the baseball would be traveling at 4mph.

I was surprised to find that my knowledge as a 10 year old was proven wrong regarding how velocities add and even though I accept the measurements proving this, I can still see why the intuitive assumption which seems "obvious" is the one we want to believe. Minutephysics did a short video on this, complaining that we teach several "wrong" concepts to children for the first 18 years of their lives, then after he was 18 he found out he had been told false things his entire life, like the 2+2=4 thing being wrong as he discusses at about 1 minute into this video, and some others.

Common Physics Misconceptions

So after having my beliefs as a 10 year old proven wrong when I got older, I'm not inclined to rely much on what I "knew" back then, since I've realized the universe is not as simple as I thought.

So while my initial reaction to Fontana's paper is the same as my initial reaction to someone telling me 2+2 does not equal 4 when adding velocities, which is a tendency to disbelieve the claim, I do try to be open minded to give claims a chance to be proven or at least supported. I see lots of proof for the 2+2 doesn't equal 4 when adding velocoties claim, but I don't really see any proof of Fontana's claims such as Each of the four space-times may host a universe", so that's my biggest headache with them.

If there really exist 4 overlapping universes, maybe we know “where” is dark matter, instead of trying to look for new particles in our spacetime.
Fontana’s paper might be an extravagant approach, but it shares a fundamental equation with special relativity. Someone will find a way to prove or disprove if relativity can be extended this way.

My point about the ten year olds was that it wasn't Special Relativity that originated the difference between space and time. I didn't mean to infer that ten year olds are correct, nor that what is obvious is correct. Merely that the idea of space and time being different far predated Einstein.

I always try to keep an open mind. When both papers referenced by dineutron pointed to Fontana, I thought perhaps that dineutron is Fontana, and offered what I would offer as a reviewer to get the conversation started. Once the initial issues are dealt with we could then move on. But if things are confusing right at the start, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep going. Also, after writing my response I remembered this idea about the three space-times from a paper I reviewed decades ago. My recollection is that with some back and forth with the author it was eventually in a publishable state and I recommended publication of the modified work.

As long as the four tests are met, we should keep an open mind and see what further tests show. (The four tests: no math errors, no logic errors, agrees with all existing experiments, results in a testable difference from other theories.)

I didn't think then, nor do I think now, that three space-times or any multi-dimensional proposal is preferable to a single three dimensional space and separate time along with an aether. However, it is the four tests that are the scientific approach that I strongly believe we should follow. As long as the three space-time approach meets those tests we should not reject it completely.