## On relativity

### Physics itself creates the neccesity of theoretical physics.

When reading Albert Einsteins book on relativity, special relativity and general relativity, it lets you believe that a co-orditate system is an absolute necessity to aproach physics. That co-ordinate system relates to a fixed body at rest. In the book referred to as K_{0}. To explain the problems that physicists faced Albert Einstein uses an example with a train carriage with a velocity on an embankment, a traveller or a light ray with a different velocity.

Using this example he shows the problem physicists face in relation to relativity. This problem is explained by the following example (Related to the example in the book.)

A train carriage has a certain velocity w relative to the embankment, a traveller moves through the train carriage with the same velocity v. So in relation to the embankment the velocity of the traveller is double the velocity of the train carriage. W = w + v or W = 2 * v. This is logical in classical physics.

When the rigid body on which the embankment is situated itself has a substantial velocity r in the same direction as the train carriage on the embankment then w becomes r + w and v becomes r + v.

The same logic in classical physics. W = w + v. **But**…, W <> 2 * v. In relation to the speed of the rigid body the velocity of v is no longer double the velocity of w. In relation to the velocity of the rigid body, the difference between the velocity of w and v is much smaller.

This implies that distances travelled by w and v in a certain time are much closer to each other, because their velocities differ much less. Completely logical but why does the traveller still reaches the end of the train carriage at the same spot on the embankment as if velocity r doesn’t exist? The traveller has no longer double the velocity of the train carriage. This conflicts in our understand of relativity.

Now the reality:

Velocity = travelled distance in a certain direction in time. The direction in which r, w, v move is equal, but their uniform speeds differ.

Let’s go back to the example with the train carriage. There is a moment when traveler v reaches the end of train carriage w. By the knowledge of their velocities in relation to the imbankment we know where on the embankment that will occure. The velocity of the rigid body, the embankment, has no influence, although it does influence the velocity of both w and v.

Why this discrepancy?

The answer lies in the fact that to determine velocity you need an origin related to that velocity. Every relative velocity needs a related origin, a relative origin. A relative origin is an origin that is in motion. Velocity and its origin are inseparable related. To define an origin related to velocity you can choose every point on the trajectory. It is a starting point from which the velocity at a moment in time starts. For the train carriage it means every point on the embankment. For the traveler it means every point on the trajectory he moves. *Note. The same applies when the traveller moves in opposite direction, in fact every direction.*

Every velocity and its origin is linked to an entity, the embankment(rigid body) or the train carriage or the traveller in the example.

In mathematics you can add or subtract velocities to become a new velocity. But you can’t add nor subtract origins of the velocities that define the new velocity. The new velocity relates to none of the seperate entities and their velocities.

Is a relative velocity changed by adding a relative velocity then its relative origin also changes.

This altered approach results in: r + w creates origin(r + w) and r + v creates origin(r + v). This implicates that relative to their origin, w and v move at the same velocity relative to each other, because velocity r applies for all. The velocity of the embankment(rigid body) has no effect on the relation w and v relative to that embankment.

Velocity in physics is represented in the form of a vector. Using these vectors may light up the problem.

In physics the following applies (the 0 stands obvious for the origin) :

W = w + v is only valid during the time v occures. W <> the average speeds of w + v because the origin of w was not the origin of v.

For example: A car drives on a straight road with a certain velocity. At one moment the driver decides to increase the velocity of the car.

When one asks a physicist what the average speed of the car is, he can’t give you an answer. He doesn’t have enough information.

In the case of relativity the same physicist suddenly has an answer, and suddenly he needs no additional information.

In reality the situation becomes:

+ =

The difference is that in physics all vectors become one vector discarding the entities the vectors represented. That difference can be made clear.

In physics it does not matter which vector comes first when combined, but in reality it makes a huge difference. The velocity of traveller v has his reference in train carriage v where the traveller started moving. A traveller at rest related to the train carriage becomes equal to the train carriage as do the seats. The motion of train carriage w and that of traveller v not neccesary started at the same time.

It make a huge difference if the train carriage is already in motion as the traveller starts walking or on the other hand, when the motion of the train carriage w starts when traveller v already is walking. Who moves first? So the following applies.

+ <> +

Adding time to events is of the essence. In physics, when combining velocities, time is neglected. Time and the related origin of a relative velocity are connected. The starting point of a motion is a moment in time.

Another practical example explains the importance of time:

A train carriage w travels from station A to station B. At station A a passenger v enters the train at the backend. Having done that the train departs.

Situation 1:

Traveller v is not in a hurry and immediately sits down at the backside of the train carriage w. When the train arrives at station B he walks to the frontside of the train to reach the exit of station B.

Situation 2:

Traveller v is in a hurry and decides to walk to the frontside of the train carriage w. He knows that the exit of station B will be at the front end of the train when he arrives. In doing so he saves time.

In both situations the train carriage w has the same velocity. In both situations the velocity of traveller v is the same relative to the train. In both cases traveller v reach the exit of station B.

In situation 1 physics doesn’t add up vector w and vector v because they are seperate events.

In situation 2 physics calculates: vector W = w + v. Velocity W becomes the velocity of traveller v, and train carriage w is lost in the proces. The walking motion of traveller v results now in a much bigger velocity. It’s as if he is in slow motion and taking big steps.

The only difference between situation 1 and 2 is that event v occured at a different time. In situation 2 event w had an overlap with event v.

The representation of velocities should be:

A

B

C

D

E

F

A. Solely the origin and velocity of traveller v.

B. The origin and velocity of traveller v subjected to the origin and velocity of the train carriage w.

C. The origin and velocity of traveller v subjected to the origin and velocity of the train carriage w which in itself is subjected to the origin and velocity of the embankment r.

D. The origin and velocity of the train carriage w is subject to the origin and velocity of the embankment r.

E. The origin and velocity of traveller v is subjected to the origin and velocity of the embankment r.

F. The origin and velocity of the embankment r.

In reality r, w and v are seperate events. By combining vector r, vector w and vector v all vectors become one event with one origin. But who’s origin? The embankment, train carriage and traveller stop to exist. Only the vector remains loose from reality.

By the approach above r can be ruled out, w can be ruled out and v can be ruled out without altering the relation between r, w or v. The embankment, train carriage and traveller stay to exist. Vector W should be vector W^{r+w+v}.

The total of vectors remains the same, but now it has a reference to the vectors who builded the total, and the relations between them. Relativity shows and has an order!

The consequence of this approach is the elimination of the necessity of the theory of relativity.

By filtering out essential factors physicists create their own problems in relation to relativity. Relativity of velocity is not necessarily related to a rigid body or a co-ordinate system. In a space where its boundaries can’t be defined, all origins are equal relative.

Light speed, a scalar quantity as it’s called is mostly a number (299·792·458) and has no direction. The number is the result of empirical measurements. When speed needs an origin and distance to be determined, you also need direction to determine the distance. You can’t give a variable meaning to the concept of ‘speed’ and bend it until it fits. This is pure mathematics, and pure theoretical.

From the perspective of an observer; An observer can only passive do his observations from the location he is in. He is not a relative origin nor can he influence a relative origin by moving himself.

In a fixed co-ordinate system its origin is a fixed origin. Therefor classical physics do apply. In reality there is no fixed origin to attach a co-ordinate system to.

The only orientation that remains is based on determining relative origins. These relative origins can be located in empty space.

Because a velocity can have all directions, one can say the origin of the velocity of an entity can be rendered by a uniform increasing sphere on which every point has travelled the same distance relative to the center. Is the entity a light wave than that velocity is “299·792·458 metres per second in a vacuum”.

Starting from this concept it’s easier to explain the findings of physicists a century ago. This approach also clarifies that Redshift should have a broader meaning in physics.

Return