The resolution of the Langevin paradox for an out-and-return journey gives rise to a result which appears to violate the underlying basis of special relativity. The resolution of this second paradox, due to G. Builder, leads to a physically-intelligible interpretation of Einstein's theory and reconciles it with the cosmologically-based fundamental reference frame revealed by modern astronomy.

Eternalism is the view that all times are equally real. The relativity of simultaneity in special relativity backs this up. There is no cosmically extended, self-existing ‘now.’ This leads to a tricky problem. What makes statements about the present true? I shall approach the problem along the lines of perspectival realism and argue that the choice of the perspective does. To corroborate this point, the Lorentz transformations of special relativity are compared to the structurally similar equations of the Doppler effect. (...) The ‘now’ is perspectivally real in the same way as a particular electromagnetic spectrum frequency. I also argue that the ontology of time licensed by perspectival realism is more credible in this context than its current alternative, the fragmentalist interpretation of special relativity. (shrink)

In the first of these two studies it is argued that the discrepancy between the predicted and actual outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment is due to the use of Newton's velocity addition theorem in conjunction with an electromagnetic theory of light. The ether hypothesis is not directly affected at all. The second study is a case study of the removal of a clash in physics generated from the outcome of an experiment. The clash due to the Michelson-Morley experiment gave rise (...) to a program of revision. In the process of implementation of this program Newtonian mechanics was remolded. It is argued that the Riemannian space-time in Einstein's general theory of relativity may be regarded as a successor of the classical ether. (shrink)

After reviewing the foundations of special relativity and the room left for rival theories, a set of nonrelativistic para-Lorentzian transformations is derived uniquely, based on (a) a weaker first principle, (b) the requirement that the transformations sought do not give rise to the clock “paradox” (in a refined version), and (c) the compliance of the transformations with the classical experiments of Michelson-Morley, Kennedy-Thorndike, and Ives-Stilwell. The corresponding dynamics is developed. Most of the experimental support of special relativity is reconsidered in (...) the light of the new theory. It is concluded that the relativity of simultaneity has so far not been tested. (shrink)

Paths of shortest length, or geodesics, may not appear as straight lines because acceleration creates distortion. For spaces of constant curvature there are only two possibilities: Either rulers get longer as they move away from the origin or they shrink. Because the longitudinal Doppler shift corresponds to the measure of distance, in velocity space, this space is hyperbolic, corresponding to the second of the two possibilities. Transformations from one inertial frame to another are related to geometrical rigid motions. The square (...) root of the Doppler shift is related to transformations of uniformly accelerated frames. Applications to general relativity and cosmology are given including the time-velocity metric of the Friedmann universe of dust at zero pressure, Hubble's law and the exponential red-shift. (shrink)

The theory of relativity forbids the superluminal travel of ordinary matter. However, it is possible to amend the theory of relativity and to develop a theory permitting superluminal travel. The acceptability of the features needed for superluminal travel is discussed.

The Lorentz transformation relates the Einstein-defined measures, associated with two inertial frames, of the space and time coordinates of a body or event. From such information relative velocities and accelerations may be deduced, and their appropriate transformations derived. All other transformations of special relativity are derived from the Lorentz transformation and hence depend on the coordinate measures related by the transformation. In particular, the transformation of forces depends on that for accelerations; hence it may not be appropriately applicable to equilibrium (...) phenomena involving null-acceleration. It is suggested that this is the root of the apparent paradox which arises when the conventional force transformation is applied to the consideration of a right-angled lever in equilibrium in its proper inertial frame. It is shown that this paradox is resolved by the employment of a nonconventional but appropriate special relativistic transformation for forces not associated with corresponding accelerations. (shrink)