Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

Peter

1 You did not ask what the cause was. I usually state that in a description of dimension alteration. According to them, the cause was a differential in gravitational forces incurred.

2 Now, there is a set of factors involved, with their presumed attributes and interrelationships, and experiments which may or may not have been valid, with their outcomes which needed interpretation. In all this there is: 1) what actually physically occurs, 2) the extent to which their theory is correct for the right reasons, correct for the wrong reasons, or incorrect. There is also mention of 'translation', in addition to (?) transformation, and first and second order effects.

3 Furthermore, since you refer to it. Section 3 1905 follows on with the mistake incurred at the beginning of this paper. Which is explained in my blog post 11/7 19.33. The 'bottom line' in this section being the derivation of lambda, which for want of a better phrase is the 'all purpose differential factor'. That is, there is deemed to be variance in physical reality, which, because of misconceptualisation, is variously attributed amongst some of the factors involved. But, unsurprisingly, the calibrated variation is the same. In other words, one factor becomes a surrogate for another.

4 However, none of the above matters, in the sense that it is the internal logic of what they state which is the point here. They postulate real physical dimension alteration. The electrodynamics of this is first (Lorentz 1904) explained as revolving around the "intervention of the aether" affecting the "intensity of the molecular forces" which "determines the size and shape of a solid body". It is a plausibility argument given how "electric and magnetic forces act", with the caveat that "since we know nothing about the nature of molecular forces, it is impossible to verify the hypothesis".

5 Over the years this 'mechanism' changes until Lorentz (1904) states: "Our assumption amounts to saying that in an electrostatic system, moving with a velocity, all electrons are flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axes in the direction of motion". Although again there is a caveat: "Our assumption about the contraction of the electrons cannot in itself be pronounced to be either plausible or inadmissible. What we know about the nature of electrons is very little". Poincaré has to introduce (July 1905) the 'Poincaré stresses' in response to criticism, as he had "to suppose a special force which explains at the same time the contraction and the constancy of two of the axes" in order to keep the mechanism 'intact'.

6 [Note the start of section 4 1905 with its reference back to this concept (radius R). That in 1895 Lorentz is referring to 'local time', which derives from Voigt and Doppler. That in 1899 Lorentz is utilising the physically incorrect concept of "only at such small distances, that two particles of matter, acting on each other, may be said to have the same local time". Which was seized on by Poincaré (1904): "Their task was not easy, and if Lorentz has succeeded, it is only by an accumulation of hypotheses. The most ingenious idea is that of local time". Which is then repeated by Einstein in section 1 1905, which is where the explanation, but not necessarily the underlying physics, all goes wrong].

7 The followung quotes from Lorentz (1904) are important:

"The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena by a translation, such as all systems have in virtue of the Earth's annual motion, admits of a comparatively simple solution, so long as only those terms need be taken into account, which are proportional to the first power of the ratio between the velocity of translation w and the velocity of light c".

"It would be more satisfactory, if it were possible to show, by means of certain fundamental assumptions, and without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system. Some years ago, I have already sought to frame a theory of this kind. I believe now to be able to treat the subject with a better result. The only restriction as regards the velocity will be that it be smaller than that of light".

"Thus far we have only used the fundamental equations without any new assumptions. I shall now suppose that the electrons, which I take to be spheres of radius R in the state of rest, have their dimensions changed by the effect of a translation, the dimensions in the direction of motion becoming kl times and those in perpendicular direction l times smaller. In this deformation, which may be represented by... each element of volume is understood to preserve its charge. [This point was subsequently corrected by Poincaré]. Our assumption amounts to saying that in an electrostatic system, moving with a velocity, all electrons are flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axes in the direction of motion".

"Strictly speaking, the formula (28) may only be applied in the case of a uniform rectilinear translation. On account of this circumstance- though (29) is always true- the theory of rapidly varying motions of an electron becomes very complicated, the more so, because the hypothesis of para 8 would imply that the direction and amount of the deformation are continually changing... Nevertheless, provided the changes in the state of motion be sufficiently slow, we shall get a satisfactory approximation by using (28) at every instant. The application of (29) to such a quasi-stationary translation... is a very simple matter...Hence, in phenomena in which there is an acceleration in the direction of motion, the electron behaves as if it had a mass m'"

8 In simple language. Everything is moving, in 'addition', the earth is moving. So even 'at rest' (ie constant motion) wrt earth, there is a level of interaction with the particles which comprise the 'ether' which results, via some mechanism, with some degree of dimension alteration. If entities are caused to 'move more', ie their momentum is changing, then there is a further level of dimension alteration. Lorentz 1895: "In reality the molecules of a body are not at rest, but there exists a stationary motion in every "equilibrium state".

9 Leaving aside how the mechanism works, the next question is, what is causing that. And the answer is a differential in gravitational force, because these forces are ever present, entities thereby having an "equilibrium" state when these forces, as incurred, are counterbalanced. So the (additional) effect only occurs if there is an imbalance in that, and continues whilst that circumstance obtains, ie there is a reversion to the 'normal' state when the balance in forces is re-established.

10 Note:

10.1 There is no other cause mentioned. Interaction with particles in the 'ether' do not suddenly involve a 'step change'. That is just concerned with the mechanism through which the outcome (dimension alteration) occurs, and that 'underlying state' of 'disturbance' (dimension alteration) due to motion. Gravitational forces are involved in the ether.

10.2 SR involves no gravitational forces, GR does. Why, otherwise differentiate a "linmiting case", or "special case", unless the variable that is the ultimate cause is gravitational force.

11 SR. Einstein defines its scope thus:

Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 3: "the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation."

Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 28: "The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists."

Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 18: "provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion...all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity."

Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 22: "From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields...A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position...We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

12 Ether. The important points are:

Einstein (1921) A Brief Outline of the Development of the Theory of Relativity

"The theory [Lorentz] appeared to be unsatisfactory only in one point of fundamental importance. It appeared to give preference to one system of coordinates of a particular state of motion (at rest relative to the aether) as against all other systems of co-ordinates in motion with respect to this one. In this point the theory seemed to stand in direct opposition to classical mechanics, in which all inertial systems which are in uniform motion with respect to each other are equally justifiable as systems of co-ordinates (Special Principle of Relativity)".

"The Special Theory of Relativity owes its origin to this difficulty...This theory originated as the answer to the question: Is the special principle of relativity really contradictory to the field equations of Maxwell for empty space? The answer to this question appeared to be in the affirmative".

"A more searching analysis of the physical significance of space and time rendered it evident that the Galileo transformation is founded on arbitrary assumptions, and in particular on the assumption that the statement of simultaneity has a meaning which is independent of the state of motion of the system of co-ordinates used. It was shown that the field equations for vacuo satisfy the special principle of relativity, provided we make use of the equations of transformation stated below:... [Lorentz]"

"Now in order that the special principle of relativity may hold, it is necessary that all the equations of physics do not alter their form in the transition from one inertial system to another, when we make use of the Lorentz transformation for the calculation of this change. In the language of mathematics, all systems of equations that express physical laws must be co-variant with respect to the Lorentz transformation".

Einstein (1922) Ether and The Theory of Relativity:

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility".

"To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view".

"What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation".

13 In simple language. Through the misconceptualisation of time, a non-existent variance was introduced which was then used to resolve the "unsatisfactory" aspect, whereby "It [Lorentz theory] appeared to give preference to one system of coordinates of a particular state of motion (at rest relative to the aether) as against all other systems of co-ordinates in motion with respect to this one". That is, it was deemed that the "apparent preference" was just that, apparent. It being no more than a reflection of the differential in 'local time'. And was resolved so long as the Lorentz transformations were applied.

Paul

Hi Peter, sorry for my late reply, I was thrown back on an alpha probability in Total Simultaneity. The wave front you mention is in fact what I describe as the antenna character of our consciousness that is able to receive signals from your wave fronts even if they are not yet conscious awareness (this is only achieved after a certain data procesing transmission delay in our Deterministic causal universe. I changed already 2 times the title of my essay, and you are right 9 pages is NOTHING to explain what is happening on your subjective simultaneity sphere. (all things from my essay)

Wilhelmus

Peter,

It is apparent from the various essays submitted that yours is one of the few that actually identifies one of the "core" basic assumptions that has led so many scientific theories astray.

Perfectly constant characteristics of a vacuum everywhere is just one of the assumptions that is required for Einstein's theories, and many of the theories in astrophysics. There was another basic assumption that was considered "settled science" at the time Einstein developed his various theories, propagated electromagnetic (EM) fields were transverse only to the axis of propagation. EM fields are now being produced with longitudinal components, for over a decade now, which negates the assumption that EM fields cannot produce an attractant force in the direction of propagation.

Georgina Parry (topic 1316) stated in her Magic section how various assumptions have become accepted as facts, "the human tendency to draw strong conclusions from incomplete information." Einstein had incomplete information, based upon what is known now versus what was known 100 years ago, but is seems questioning Einstein can be a career ending stance, considering how the scientific authority structure enforces the views of their favorites.

I stayed with what I considered a basic core assumption about units of measure in my essay, topic 1294. I didn't mention the discovery process that resulted in the concept identified in the IEEE paper referenced in my essay, but it started with challenging an assumption that was more than a century old. It seems contemporary scientists have become so comfortable with all the old assumptions that they no longer recognize they are assumptions.

Frank(Peter)

"Perfectly constant characteristics of a vacuum everywhere is just one of the assumptions that is required for Einstein's theories"

Was it? In SR he just invokes it as a condition, not what physically exists. In GR he makes no such assumption. The ether, which is in effect that vacuum, comprises particles which have an effect on others travelling through it, which includes light.

Peter is right in identifying, physically, how that which we call light, might travel, and indeed at a more or less constant rate, having always started at the same speed ("atomic shattering"), and how it can do this but remain unchanged (virtually).

Paul

Paul (Peter)

It seems that some people with good academic credentials do not consider that a "perfect vacuum" is just a condition of SR. Several years ago, I had an email exchange with an IEEE editor (with PhD in physics, since moved on), who had written a special article describing how the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly might be explained. I stated that a variable permittivity/permeability based on the inverse square of the distance from the Sun would explain the anomaly. The following is the editors response:

"Your suggestion of making the permittivity and/or permeability of the vacuum radially dependent on distance from the sun, and so altering the speed of light, would indeed produce results that look like the Pioneer Anomaly. However, this would undermine the basis of relativity theory, by eliminating the equivalence of inertial reference frames[1], and so also wipe out the standard model (in particular, having a variable vacuum speed of light would have a severe impact on the predictions of time dilation, which have been experimentally verified in particle accelerators, albeit only on Earth.)

It seems the simple solution or even a suggestion for a solution, aka Occam's Razor, can't be used if it conflicts with SR.

One of my other mentors at the time my IEEE editor email exchange took place was a Prof. Emeritus of Elec. Engr. I provided him with my email exchange with the IEEE editor and he responded, "Frank, you must understand that the special theory of relativity (SRT) is the holy grail. It's the place where religion and science become one. If one has the audacity to suggest other possibilities, he is forever shunned, banned, and is a candidate for being burned at the stake."

Some of the currently observed oddities about the "vacuum" were not known when Einstein developed and published his theories, thus, reinforcing my view that Einstein reached conclusions with "incomplete information" (thanks to the Georgina Parry essay on a way to examine assumptions).

Frank

By condition I mean a presumed theoretical caveat. Not what is in 'space'. Einstein was clear about this:

Einstein (1922) Ether and The Theory of Relativity:

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility".

"To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view".

"What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation".

The whole of SR is a theoretical circumstance, because it was the result of extricating himself from "only apparently irreconcilable" (page 1 1905), which he explained in section 7 GR & SR 1916. The point is that in 1905, he invoked caveats that meant matter and light could not co-exist, if one presumes 1905 to be a cohesive theory. That is, light is in vacuo (ie nothing is available to interact with it), whereas objects were not in vacuo (ie something was available to interact with them, because they incurred dimension alteration in certain circumstances).

Here are a few quotes which indicate what Einstein actually defined SR as:

1 Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 1:

"We call this postulate "The Special Relativity Principle." By the word special, it is signified that the principle is limited to the case, when K' has uniform translatory motion with reference to K, but the equivalence of K and K' does not extend to the case of non-uniform motion of K' relative to K. The special theory of relativity does not depart from classical mechanics through the postulate of relativity, but through the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo."

"According to the special relativity theory, the theorems of geometry are to be looked upon as the laws about any possible relative positions of solid bodies at rest."

2 Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 3:

"the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation."

3 Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 28:

"The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists."

"In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity."

4 Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 18:

"the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let us once more analyse its meaning carefully. It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion must only be considered as a relative motion."

"If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body we refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be confused with the much more comprehensive statement called "the principle of relativity,""

"we started out from the assumption that there exists a reference-body K, whose condition of motion is such that the Galileian law holds with respect to it: A particle left to itself and sufficiently far removed from all other particles moves uniformly in a straight line."

"provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion."

5 Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 22:

"However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-body K, such a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocity c. It can easily be shown that the path of the same ray of light is no longer a straight line when we consider it with reference to the accelerated chest (reference-body K'). From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields. In two respects this result is of great importance...... In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

Paul & Peter,

Einstein developed his theories based upon what was known at the time he made them, which included the assumptions he used. He revised his theories as new information became available. I seriously doubt Einstein would support a curved space theory of gravity from what is known today. The link below is a 1920 revision.

Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920)

Einstein was aware of the Newtonian instantaneous influence at a distance, which is required to keep our planetary orbits from becoming ever increasing spirals. Einstein never mentioned permittivity and permeability in respect to his theories. I suspect Einstein did not know how to accommodate instantaneous influence at a distance and the presence of permittivity and permeability, thus he ignored them. Someone pushed him on the instantaneous influence at a distance issue, as he eventually responded with his "spooky" action at a distance statement.

There is a simple (ala Occam's Razor) explanation why the influence of gravity has a different "velocity" than the propagation velocity of the gravity field, but the explanation would invalidate SRT. The same explanation would accommodate the concept of quantum entanglement.

No need to go down the rabbit hole where we are constantly being taken, led by the disciples of the Mad Hatter.

Peter

Thanks for your response. I am honored that you felt my essay might be used to sort of pave the way for your views. As I said the confidence I had in writing it comes from a vision of a simple functional physics such as my much-vaunted Beautiful Universe Theory. I think we both have a similar approach to a an imagined ToE of local interactions.

The phased-array example you provided is very pertinent to our discussion but I do not think it annuls a vectorial approach to analysis. The vectors from each emitter of the array add up at any point in the field, and a wavefront is generated. Normal to the wavefronts energy flows along streamlines (defined by the Poynting vectors). It is only when the wavefronts are straight that light goes along straight rays, but in most cases (except that of turbulent flow where things become very messy) the vectors add up to curved streamlines. Please see my analysis in Figs. 10-13 of my Cancellation of Diffraction paper to see how straight vectors can describe curved streamlines

Cheers and good luck!

Vladimir

Frank

I am not commenting on the substance of his theory, as such, but making two points 1 1905 is not SR 2 The explanation of the essential core of his theory (ie dimension alteration) is incorrect because that is effected in the context of Poincare's simultaneity and spacetime, both of which deploy an invalid conception of time. In other words, the fundamental hypothesis (ie dimension alteration) may or may not be correct, but assessment of that should not involve considering the explanation.

Hall of Mirrors, was a phrase that came to my mind as I tried to track my way through these papers (I think I have that 1920 one on my list, but will check, thanks)

Paul

Frank

Sorry, meant to say soon after but got distracted. This is the 1916 paper isn't it, published in 1920, which I have somehow incorrectly slipped into referring to as SR & GR rather than S & G.

Paul

Peter

Since my last post, in researching material for a paper I am writing, I read a paper that sheds more light on the assumption issues. The author, J.H. Field, who has a cern.ch email address, used the term hypothesis and hypotheses, vice assumption(s), to describe what is influencing scientific thought. The paper was published in Physica Scripta - PHYS SCR , vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 702-717, 2006 DOI: 10.1088/0031-8949/74/6/018 , plus it is on arXiv.

Classic electrodynamics

At the end of section 6, the author states, "Regrettably science is, at the time of this writing, riddled by many 'hypotheses' of the type referred to in the first of the above quotations. One such hypothesis, that has persisted through much of the 19th century and all of the 20th is that: 'No physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light'. This is contradicted by the arguments given above and, as discussed in the following section, also by the results of some recent experiments."

I note he used one of the several superluminal references I have cited in my new paper.

I found the term "virtual photon" and its characteristics interesting. It seems the "virtual photon" is a one-legged version of the traditional two-legged EM photon that has both an electric and magnetic field. Field didn't hesitate to use the term "instantaneous" numerous times in his paper. His paper passed peer review.

The paper I am preparing describes the mechanism that results in an "instantaneous" influence, and surprisingly, it uses the principles behind the virtual photon, which I had never heard of before.

Peter

There are indeed, but isn't the starting point to understand what the man himself said SR was? Indeed, the confusion between 1905 & SR is the source of the problem really. SR, as defined by Einstein is simple. In fact it cannot be wrong, or indeed prove anything, because the circumstance in which it occurs is so conditioned.

Paul

Peter

"I agree entirely about "one REAL unit of everything" particularly time. Paul seemed to miss the below too"

I missed this post. This is not how timing works. Timing is an extrinsic assessment of the rate of change between realities. So, one takes any timing device (which could be any change sequence, but it is best to have a good one, snail movement just doesn't cut it!) and counts and compares sheer number of changes irrespective of type. Which includes, obviously, a start and a finish. Therefore, as at any given point in time (start and finish), A was at spatial point X, B was at spatial point Y, or whatever is being timed. Whilst D occurred (ie number of changes in any given attribute of A), E occurred (ie number of changes in any given attribute in B). The concept of 'whilst' need not be concurrent, when one has a timing device, because that is providing a reference (ie in quartz timing devices, crystal oscillation), so the comparison can be effected even if it does not involve concurrent events.

It has nothing to do with moving with the timing device, nor is there real and apparent time. Physically, what happens is that there is a time when there was physical existence. Then there is a subsequent time when a representation (from the perspective of the sensory system, and it is known as light in the sensory system of sight) of that physical existence reaches any given appropriate sensory receptor. The delay being a function of prevailing environmental conditions through which the light travelled, and distance between the reality, as at the point in time when it occurred, and the 'eye', as at the point in time when reception of the light occurred. That is, not the distance between the two when the reality occurred, because relative movement can occur whilst the light is travelling.

This simple fact reveals an optical illusion, which many ascribe to being something more than it physically is:

As light travels, there is a delay between the time of occurrence of the existent state (reality), reaction with which resulted in the light at the same time, and the time of the receipt of that light by any given sentient organism. That delay will vary as a function of the distance involved, and the speed with which the light actually travelled in each experience (ie the extent to which environmental conditions had an impact). If there was no significant variable environmental impact, then the perceived rate of any given change in a physical sequence will remain the same, so long as the on-going relative spatial position remains constant amongst everything involved. This is because, while the value of the delay is different depending on distance, it remains constant.

However, when relative distance is altering, then the perceived rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which the distances are altering. It is a perceptual illusion, as the actual rate of physical change does not alter.

Paul

Peter

The speed of the bullet wrt to the video camera, or anything else on the platform, is not v+c The bullet is travelling at c, you said so. It is not part of the train. Unless the train is hermetically sealed, in the sense that it is solid. In which case the speed would be the composite speed wrt all that which was on the platform. For somebody or something on the train, indeed including he train itself, the speed of the bullet is c-v wrt these things, assuming the bullet was fired in the same direction as the motion of the train, because they are travelling at v, you said so.

Seeing the rest of the train, with or without boxes, and videoing it, is irrelevant, because seeing is not calibrating light speed. The only way that could be done is by calculating timings for light travel and distances in each circumstance (assuming all environmental conditions were equal, ie no one particular light was impeded in travelling more than any other).

There is a physical reality (ie platforms, trains, people, bullets, etc). As at a point of its existence, there is interaction which generates light (which is a physical reality of itself). This travels.

Furthermore, time periods have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with observers, constancy, or frames. Timing is not affected by reality, because it is not of reality, it is an extrinsic human measuring system which rates change, eg whilst 100k oscillations occurred in my quartz watch, the elephant moved 10 yards.

Paul