A New Approach for Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
in the View of Absolute Theory
Eizo NAKAZA＊

Abstract
This paper introduces a new dimension in discussing Einstein’s theory of relativity from theviewpoint of absolute theory. The physical concepts of absolute theory are diametrically opposite
to those of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein’s theory introduces the principles of relativity
and the constancy of the speed of light. However, these two principles appear to be mutuallycontradictory. In contrast, absolute theory is consistent with the principle of the constancy of the
speed of light.
In absolute theory, the principle of the constancy of the speed of light is introduced to constructthree-dimensional coordinates in a moving inertial reference frame that obeys the relation L = Ct
(L: length, t: time, C: speed of light). The experimental result of Michelson and Morley are
explained in terms of this modified concept and an absolute theory is constructed. In thediscussion, the absolute rest frame is employed as the basic reference frame for inertial frames.
Key Words：Special relativity, General relativity, Einstein, relative velocity, absolute theory, absolute velocity,
absolute time, absolute stationary field

1. Introduction
Einstein’s theory of relativity, which originated with the special
theory of relativity in 1905, is currently (over a century since its
conception) universally accepted. Its concepts could now be
considered to be general knowledge. When we reflect on thepast and consider how those with doubts about the theory haveall but disappeared, there seem to be several points that weshould learn from this.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity indicates that all energy
and momentum (such as inertial force and gravity) manifests
itself as a curvature (or warping) of space; this is expressed by
Riemannian geometry. To the author, this seems to indicate thatmomentums, gravities, and electromagnetic forces are projected
onto a single space, and that there, all the forces are discussed ina unified manner. Thus, it seems to imply the existence of an
absolute space that functions as a unified field.

Consequently, for the author to propose a theory that is thediametrically opposite to Einstein’s theory surely raises a certain
level of alarm. However, the more the author studied Einstein’s
theory, the more he found that together with a deep respect for
Einstein’s ideas he began to have doubts about whether it was
truly appropriate. This is the reason for him daring to state anargument here.

This paper considers the theory of relativity from theperspective of an absolute theory. In other words, it considers aconcept that Einstein clearly regarded as being superfluous tophysics, namely an absolute rest frame as a unified field forforce and motion. We demonstrate that all forces and motion
can be discussed in a unified manner on the absolute rest frame.

In the special theory of relativity, Einstein introduced two
principles: the principle of relativity and the principle of theconstancy of the speed of light. These two principles aremutually contradictory: one is based on relativity, whereas theother one contradicts it by introducing an absolute constant.
Einstein himself noted this contradiction.

An article was recently posted on the Internet with the title“Physicists’ Finding Raises Relatively Huge Question: Was
Einstein Wrong?” (September 7, 2010). This shocking article
reported that an Australian team (University of New South
Wales) had discovered that the fine-structure constant, which
had hitherto been considered to be a universal quantity, variedwith spatial location and time. It questions whether Einstein’s
general theory of relativity is wrong.

Accepted: September 15, 2010
*Department of Civil Engineering & Architecture,
Faculty of Engineering, University of the Ryukyus

Meanwhile, after many years of debate regarding Einstein’s
special theory of relativity, Koshun Suto states that there arecases that disagree with the predictions of special relativity in
Violation of the Special Theory of Relativity as Proven by
Synchronization of Clocks (Physics Essays 23, 3, 2010).
In that paper, Suto stated that for two coordinate systems thatare moving relative to each other, the relative velocity is not the
only velocity that is important, but that it is also necessary to
account for the involvement of an unknown velocity vector,
which Einstein denied existed. He insists that to preserve theprinciple of relativity it is necessary to consider an unknown
velocity vector and simultaneously introduce the concept of adeep stationary system (which Suto refers to as an unknown
stationary system).
The absolute theory considered in this paper introduces theprinciple of the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein’s
special theory of relativity also introduces this principle, but it
seems to contradict the principle of relativity. In contrast, theprinciple of the constancy of the speed of light and the absolutetheory appear to be consistent with each other.
In this paper, we first simply state the differences between theconventional theory of relativity and the absolute theory
proposed here. We then reconsider the MichelsonMorleyexperiment. Next, we define an absolute rest frame and themethod of setting the space and time in an inertial reference
frame based on the principle of the constancy of the speed oflight. We then consider the results of the MichelsonMorleyexperiment. Following that, we discuss the rules for convertingfrom an inertial reference frame to an absolute rest frame. We
incorporate acceleration and gravity and consider proper time.
Finally, we summarize the conclusions of the discussion.
2. Einstein’s theory of relativity and the flow of time
Einstein’s special theory of relativity stipulates the principle ofrelativity in the following manner: if two observers on two
inertial reference frames moving relative to each otherinterchange places with one another, then both of them willobserve exactly the same phenomena as previously.
Newtonian mechanics is based on the fact that even if observers
interchange the reference frames in which they stand, thedynamics will remain completely the same as before.

later than the time in frame A. We take this to be consideration 1.
Conversely, when we observe the time in frame A from frame B,
frame A’s clock will appear later than frame B’s clock. This isconsideration 2.
This interpretation can be considered to express the meaning ofEinstein’s principle of relativity. Considerations 1 and 2 initiallyappear to be correct. However, by interchanging the frames ofreference of the observers, these considerations permit time torun backwards.
In Newtonian mechanics, time is defined as flowing universally
so that it is the same in any frame of reference. Consequently,
even if the observers are exchanged between the two frames ofreference, they should observe exactly the same phenomena.
However, Einstein’s special theory of relativity ensures that thetime in the frame with relative velocity is observed as being lateby the observers. Therefore, when observers are exchanged
between frames A and B, time will appear to go backwards tothe observer who was in frame A prior to moving to B.
While it is possible to assume that two velocities go in the
opposite directions, we cannot allow time to go backwards
since the flow of time is unidirectional. Thus, the considerations
presented here lead to the inference that the principle ofrelativity does not hold true in Einstein’s special theory of
relativity.
3. Differences between the theory of relativity and absolutetheoryEinstein’s special theory of relativity completely discards theconcept of an absolute rest frame and it emphasizes that all
movement between inertial reference frames should be
discussed only in terms of the relative velocity between them.
In contrast, the absolute theory proposed in this paper takes theexistence of an absolute rest frame as foundational for
discussing physical phenomena in a universal manner. Itemphasizes the fact that all movement must be discussed interms of its relationship to absolute velocity and absolute time.

In the absolute theory presented in this paper, it is not permitted
to interchange observers. That is, the direction of observation isfixed. We discuss this point below using a simple example.

For example, when acceleration and gravity are not considered,and there are two inertial reference frames with a relative
velocity of v , the movement between them is thought to be
determined by v alone. This may be considered to be thephysical world view of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

We consider two moving inertial reference frames (frames A
and B) that have a relative velocity of . According to Einstein’s
theory of relativity, when we observe one frame of reference(B) from the other (A), the time in frame B will be observed as

In contrast, the absolute theory proposed in this paperemphasizes that all inertial reference frames have proper timeand space determined by their respective absolute velocities andthat all physical phenomena related to motion and force (suchas the mass of an object) is determined by the proper time andspace within that frame.
According to the absolute theory, all objects in the inertial
reference frame have mechanical properties with a unique
identity that depends on the absolute velocities they possess.
This implies that there is no such thing as a universal physicalconstant that is common to motion and mechanics in all inertial
reference frames. Viewed another way, this means that it is only
possible to accurately compare physical phenomena in an
absolute rest frame; it is not possible to do so from an inertial
reference frame.
For example, according to the absolute theory, the relationshipbetween the time on a rocket launched from Earth and the timeon the surface of the planet is not determined by their relative
velocities. Rather, it insists that this relationship depends on theabsolute velocities they both possess. This eliminates the factorsthat give rise to the twin paradox.
The absolute theory proposed in this paper and the theory of
relativity have completely different physical world views, evenif we apply the same relational expressions derived by Einstein.
4. Reconsidering the MichelsonMorley experiment
The MichelsonMorley experiment found that there are no
significant parameters that alter the speed of light on Earth.
To explain this, the experimental equipment used was initiallyconsidered to be deficient, but these concerns have been
excluded. Of the many theories proposed, contraction of timeand space by Lorentz is the most popular one.
Einstein established the principle of the constancy of the speedof light based on experimental results and predictions based ona thought experiment about Maxwell’s theory ofelectromagnetism. He used it to formulate his special theory of
relativity.
Einstein’s special theory of relativity explains Lorentz’
contraction, which asserts contraction of time and space.
Consequently, it can explain the results of theMichelsonMorley experiment.
Einstein concluded that concepts such as absolute rest frame
and absolute velocity, which people had previously been
seeking, were physically unnecessary and that all the mechanics
in an inertial reference frame that does not consider acceleration
could be explained by the principle of relativity.
The Lorentz’s explanation of the MichelsonMorleyexperiment stated “if it is like this, it can be explained”, but it

did not explain “why it is like this”. Einstein’s explanation was
said that “if we introduce the principle of the constancy of the
speed of light, then we can explain why it is like that.” However,one problem with this approach is that the objective becomesthe method.
Hence, the explanations used to explain the MichelsonMorleyexperiment do not appear to describe “why is it like this?”
Therefore, we are forced to infer that the MichelsonMorleyexperiment has not yet been adequately explained.
5. Formulation of the absolute theory
A formulation of the absolute theory is given below. However,to simplify the explanation, we initially assume a special case inwhich acceleration and gravity do not operate. However, thisrestriction is later lifted and the explanation is generalized.
5.1 Definition of absolute rest frame
We first define an absolute rest frame.
Electromagnetic waves such as light propagate through space.
At this point, it is not clear whether space is filled with asubstance like the ether that permits electromagnetic waves topropagate. However, the fact is that light is able to propagate
through space.
In the following argument, space is assumed to perform noother action besides allowing electromagnetic waves such as
light to propagate. Next, we assume that there are stationary
observers located at arbitrary points in this space.
We also assume that the observers perform no other action thanobserving physical phenomena in space. The observers are able
to define coordinates to measure the width of space at any pointin the space that they are in. We define time as the time
indicated by their watches.
In space of this kind, time can be universally set to the times ofthe observers. Einstein’s method is used to confirm
synchronism.
We assume that there are no celestial bodies of any kind in thisspace; we assume that only the above-mentioned
electromagnetic waves such as light propagate at constantvelocity. This kind of space differs from the concept of an
absolute rest frame required by Newtonian mechanics, but sucha space is defined as an absolute rest frame in this paper.
We define the velocity measured by stationary observers
located at arbitrary locations in this space as the absolute
velocity. Furthermore, we define the time indicated by thewatches of those observers as the absolute time.

Naturally, Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism holds in an
absolute rest frame.
5.2 Introducing the principle of the constancy of the speedof light and setting space and time within an inertial
reference frame
In the absolute rest frame defined above, we can assume an
inertial reference frame that moves with a certain absolute
velocity. At the same time, we assume a stationary observer inthat inertial reference frame.
Just as people on the Earth’s surface usually do, the observers inmoving frames perceive themselves to be in an absolute rest
frame. They can define coordinates centered on their position
and they can define time using the times indicated by theirwatches.
However, just as we normally do on Earth, when defining thecoordinates to indicate the width of space, the observers can use
electromagnetic waves such as light and mark symbols on thecoordinate axes based on their own time. When doing so, thevelocity of light is implicitly assumed to be constant in all
directions.
In this way, a stationary observer in a certain inertial reference
frame will perceive themselves as being in an absolute rest
frame and based on their time, they can define space byassuming the speed of light to be isotropic and constant. This isdefined as the principle of the constancy of the speed of light.
Einstein also introduced the principle of the constancy of the
speed of light when formulating the special theory of relativity.
Even though it gives the same results, he appears to introduce itfor different reasons than us.
Based on the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, anobserver in an inertial reference frame can independently define
space and time in each frame. To such an observer, it is an
implicit fact that the frame that they are in is at absolute rest.
Hence, such an observer will naturally believe that Maxwell’stheory of electromagnetism holds in the space that they define.
Conversely, this fact is also a cause for thinking that the velocity
of light is fixed.
5.3 Objective of the MichelsonMorley experiment
Located on the surface of the Earth (which is assumed to be asingle inertial reference frame moving with an absolute
velocity), we implicitly think of the space enveloping us andtime as being defined based on the principle of the constancy ofthe speed of light.
At this time, a stationary observer in an absolute rest frame

would perceive the Earth as not being at rest; rather they
perceive it as moving with an absolute velocity. Accordingly, as
long as an observer on Earth considers himself to be at rest,
then the velocity of light must be observed at a relative velocity
to the absolute velocity of the Earth.
To people on Earth for whom the constancy of the speed oflight has been implicit until now, a change in the speed of lightwould undermine the foundations of space and time and thefoundation to Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. This isbecause the Galilean transformation cannot correctly transform
Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism.
Is it possible for a stationary observer on Earth to observechanges in the speed of light? That is to say, is it possible for us
to observe the absolute velocity of the Earth? We use theMichelsonMorley experiment to answer this question.
In the MichelsonMorley experiment, it is assumed that if wemeasure the length of a rigid rod with its axis aligned in the
direction of travel of the Earth and an orthogonally aligned rigid
rod with the same length, then a difference in the speed of lightwill manifest itself as a time difference in the measurement.
5.4 Space and time of a stationary observer on Earth
Observers on Earth can define their own space and time basedon the principle of the constancy of the speed of light.
Consequently, when the isotropic speed of light is taken to be
C , then the relationship between the length of the rigid rod thatcharacterizes the space they are in L and the time required tomeasure it t is expressed by the following expression for any
direction.
t

L
C

(1)

5.5 Measurement of the length of a rigid rod with its axis
orthogonal to the direction of the absolute velocity of EarthWe first consider the situation shown in Fig. 1. In other words,
we consider an inertial reference frame that moves at an
absolute velocity v , as shown in the ellipse in Fig. 1. The
upper diagram in the ellipse represents the light path observedby an observer who perceives themselves to be at absolute restin that inertial reference frame. In contrast, the diagram in thelower part of the ellipse shows the light path described by anobserver in an absolute stationary system.
Meanwhile, the observer outside the ellipse represents astationary observer in an absolute rest frame. In contrast, amoving inertial reference frame consists of the observer and thev

Furthermore, the observer on Earth did not actually measure theheight of the rod in the vertical direction. Using light with aspeed C' , the observer measured the length L' y in a diagonal
direction (the direction ab in Fig. 1).
The observer on Earth is concerned whether, in such a situation,
their prior physical world view (that had been formulated basedon the implicit establishment of the speed of light as C ) has
been destroyed. We consider this issue below.

movingLylight C
O’
b
Loy

C’

C

light

Ly
c

a

According to the explanation of the stationary observer in an
absolute rest frame, the relationships between the values on thetriangle abc (which forms the right-angled triangles in Fig. 1)
gives us the following relational expressions:vt

Orest frame

Figure 1: Observation in the direction orthogonal to the direction of
the absolute velocity of the Earth   rod in the frame. Therefore, in all space with these removed
light propagates at a constant velocity of C .
An observer on Earth measures the length of the rod that isvertical in front of them to be L y . Since we observe the lengthof such a rod using the speed of light C , we take themeasurement time to be t y . This is the same as calibrating thecoordinate axis.
To define these conditions, an observer on Earth shines a lightbeam vertically upward from the Earth’s surface to measure thelength of the rod that is vertically upright in front of them. This
time is taken to be t A . The time for the light to reach themirror at the end of the pole and to be reflected back is taken to
be t B . The time when the light reaches the Earth again is taken
to be t AA .
At this time, the time required by the light when measuring therod is given by:(2)
t1  t B  t A
The time required for its return is given by:t 2  t AA  t B(3)

Einstein assumed that when the light travel times in opposite
directions between two different points are equal, then the times
displayed by clocks located at those points will also be the same.
The following expression is a necessary and sufficient condition
for ensuring their synchronism:(4)
t1  t 2

L y 2  vt y 2  L' y 2(6)

C'  C 2  v 2(7)

Ly  C t y(8)

At this time, the light travel times in both directions formeasuring the rod are equal, confirming synchronism.
Accordingly, using the light path length, the speed of light, andthe absolute velocity of the earth given by the stationary
observer in the absolute stationary system, the observer on
Earth recalculates the time required to measure the lengths inthe vertical direction L y , as:t' y 

L' y

C 2  v2

Ly
C

(9)

Therefore, the following relation is obtained:
L' y
t' y



Ly
ty

C

(10)

The results indicated by Eqs. (9) and (10) show that the speedof light is ultimately the same regardless of whether it is the
speed of light in the space that the observer on Earth has
defined (having perceived themselves as being in an absolute
stationary system) or the speed of light measured with the Earthmoving at an absolute velocity.
However, this conclusion is true only for the direction
orthogonal to the direction of the absolute velocity of Earth. We
refer to this conclusion below as Conclusion 1.

or,t AA  t A
 tB
2

(5)

This measurement ensures synchronism.
At such a time, a stationary observer in an absolute rest frame
would inform us that the observer on Earth is not in an absoluterest frame but is moving at an absolute velocity v .

5.6 Consideration of the velocity of light propagating in the
direction of the absolute velocity of Earth
We next discuss the measurement of a rod that is aligned in the
direction of travel of the Earth.
When stationary on the surface of the Earth, which we regard as
an inertial reference frame moving at a constant velocity v ,observers who perceive themselves as being in an absolutestationary system think that light in the space enveloping themis propagating isotropically at a speed C .
At this time, the relationship between time and space that is
considered to be correct by the stationary observer on the
Earth’s surface is expressed as:tx  t y 

Ly
Lx

C
C

t 

t1  t2  
2CLx
C 2  v2

(14)

Hence, the difference between the time required to go t1 andthe mean time t is given by:
t 

Lx
CLx
vL x


C  v C 2  v2 C 2  v2

(15)

(11)

An observer who looks from an absolute stationary system at an
observer on Earth and perceives themselves as being in a stateof absolute rest thinks that Earth is moving at a constantvelocity. They thus think that if the observer on Earth perceives
that they are in a state of absolute rest, then the speed of lightwill appear as a relative velocity to the absolute velocity of the
Earth, so that the speed of light must be C  v or C  v .

Based on these results, the observed value for the time required
for light to travel from the left end to the right end is revised tobe:t'1  t1  t  t1 vL x
C  v22(16)

Hence, we obtain.
t'1 

Lx
vL x
CLx


C  v C 2  v2 C 2  v2

(17)

We can confirm that this time is equal to the mean go and return
time, as shown previously. It confirms the synchronism of thetwo points.

v
light

light CC－ｖ
absolute

Lxrest frame

The time that has been revised to show synchronism may havechanged somewhat more than the original time due to therevision, and the length may have also changed. In fact, in Eq.
(16), time adjustment is only applied to the time whenmeasuring the moment that the light reached the right end of therod. By doing this, it is assumed that the original time of theobserver t and the time after adjustment t' are related by:(18)
at' t

t1

x’

t2
light
light C

C＋ｖ

where a is a proportionality coefficient.

Figure 2: Observation in the direction of absolute
velocity of the Earth

When the stationary observer on Earth uses the speed of lightdescribed by the stationary observer in an absolute rest frame
and remeasures the length of a stationary object in front of themin the same direction as the movement of the Earth, then thetime required for light to propagate when measuring from one
end of that item (the left) to the other end (the right) is given by(see Figure 2):L
t1  xC v(12)

If we tentatively define the speed of light observed when theobserver is moving at an absolute velocity C' , then therelationship between the length l' determined using theadjusted time and the length l determined using the correcttime prior to adjustment is given by:l  C' tl'  C' t'  C'

Lx
Cv

(13)

(21)

Based on these relational expressions, expression (17) can betransformed as:
1

v2
C

Lx

t' 
2 1

1

v

2

1
C

(22)

C2

That is to say,1First, the mean times required for go and return are given by:(20)

al' lComparing these two observation times, we can confirm thatsynchronism at the two points does not hold. Consequently, thesame time will not be shown at two separated points on Earth.
At this time, the observer on Earth must adjust the time tofollow Einstein and ensure synchronism at the two points.

ta

Therefore,

Conversely, the time required for light reflected from the rightend to reach the left is given by:
t2 

(19)

v2
C2

t1  t

(23)

1

v2
C2

L'1  L(24)

From the above, the speed of light when it is assumed that theeffect of Earth moving at an absolute velocity alters the speed oflight is given by:
C' 

L'1 L
 C
t'1
t

(25)

This result shows that even when the Earth is assumed to havean absolute velocity, the speed of light in the direction that Earthis travelling is ultimately constant. In addition, the time required
for the light to measure the length of the rod is shown to be
exactly the same as the time measured by the observer who
perceives the Earth as being at absolute rest. We refer to this asconclusion 2.
From conclusions 1 and 2, we conclude that no time difference
should occur in the MichelsonMorley experiment.
Based on the argument presented here, in any inertial reference
frame in which a stationary observer in that frame perceives
that they are at rest, the space and time that they define bytaking the speed of light to be constant and expressed inthree-dimensional Cartesian coordinates in that therelationship L  C t is satisfied. In such a space, Maxwell’stheory of electromagnetism is shown to be hold, irrespective of
the absolute velocities of the frames.
Consequently, it appears that there was a problem in thepreconditions of the MichelsonMorley experiment, in thecontext of accomplishing of its objective. Conversely, we canexperimentally demonstrate that the time and space defined ineach frame based on the principle of the constancy of the speedof light causes Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism to holdwithin the frame.
It should be noted that the principle of the constancy of the
speed of light is not being used as an explanation.
5.7 Conversion of physical quantities observed in an inertial
reference frame to an absolute rest frame (unified field)
Based on the principle of the constancy of the speed of light,
observers in each inertial reference frame can independently
define space and time. Hence, the various phenomena observedin these frames can be observed independently using light.
In this way, the physical phenomena observed using proper
time and space in various inertial reference frames are
examined with the proper time and space in each of thoseframes; when attempting to compare by introducing physicalphenomena observed in the respective frames, it is essential todiscuss the spaces and times in all the frames of reference in a
unified manner.
To discuss the mechanics in the states of absolute rest andinertial motion in a unified manner, it is convenient to transformthe mechanics in the state of inertial motion to the absolute
stationary system, and discuss them as mechanics in that system.
Furthermore, electrodynamics can also be discussed in a unified
way in an absolute rest frame.
Consequently, converting the system of motion to an absolute
stationary system makes it possible to discuss generalmechanics and electrodynamics in a unified manner. We referto the location at which we can discuss mechanics in a unified
manner as a unified field. Accordingly, we can also refer toabsolute rest frame as a unified field for general mechanics andelectrodynamics.
When regarding one of the inertial reference frames as astationary system, the rule for converting time and space withanother inertial reference frame with motion relative into it isgiven by Einstein’s special theory of relativity.
We use that result here. If we regard a stationary system definedby Einstein as being an absolute stationary system and use therelative velocity instead of the absolute velocity, then we canobtain the conversion rules, which is our objective. The logic
behind Einstein’s theory of relativity and that behind theabsolute theory developed here are exact opposites, but it ispossible to use completely unchanged relational expressions byaltering their interpretation accordingly. However, when
deriving the equations, it is not necessary to use the principle ofthe constancy of the speed of light as a method.
Using Einstein’s conversion formula, the rule for convertingfrom an inertial reference frame with an absolute velocity v toan absolute rest frame is given by:
Lox 

to 

1
2 

1  v  C2 



Lx

(26)

Loy  L y(27)

Loz  Lz

(28)

1
2 

1  v  C2 



t

(29)

Here, the physical parameters on the right-hand side represent
the physical parameters in the moving inertial reference frame
and the parameters on the left-hand side represent those in theabsolute rest frame. In this case, the absolute velocity v
represents the absolute velocity of the moving inertial reference
frame.
Accordingly, even in an inertial reference frame which has any
kind of absolute velocity, the speed of light observed by astationary observer within that system is given by the following
expression.
L
LC o 
to
t

(30)

Here,
(31)
L  Lz  Ly  Lz
It is not guaranteed that this is given in absolute terms like thisfor any inertial reference frame. The observers in inertial
reference frames are limited to cases when they define the space
and time of their system according to the “principle of theconstancy of the speed of light.”
When spaces are converted in this way, between an inertial
reference frame and the absolute rest frame, the volume
undergoes a transformation as per the following expression.
1

Vo  xo yo zo 2 
1  v  C2 



V

(32)

Accordingly, when the density of a material is isotropic in any
frame, the conversion of mass is given by the following
relational expression.
12 1  v C 2 


m

(33)

1
2 


1  v  C2 



mC 2

(34)

(35)

This shows that in an absolute stationary system, the existenceof mass is in fact the existence of energy. This can be assumed
as meaning that mass is equivalent to energy.
When the absolute velocity of Earth is sufficiently small incomparison to the speed of light, then the space and time(36)

Accordingly, the length of the rod L is given by:
L  xo  vt

(37)

By combining Eqs. (26) to (29) with Eqs. (36) and (37), we
obtain:to 

xo 

If, in these relational expressions, we set v  0 , we obtain thefollowing.
E o  mo C 2

xo  vt  x

11

Energy is converted as per the following expression.
mo C 2 

We can hypothesize an absolute rest frame described by anobserver sitting still on Earth, which is regarded as an inertial
reference frame. At this time, we can define the origin of theabsolute rest frame coordinates at an arbitrary point in thatabsolute rest frame, in order that it is convenient to observe
objects on the planet surface. At a position x' , measured in astraight line in the direction that the planet is moving, we havethe right end of the rod that is placed on Earth (such that it has
its axis along the direction of travel). At this time, the axis
extending in the direction of the point x' from the origin in theabsolute rest frame is defined as being the x' -coordinate in theabsolute rest frame. The x -axis of the coordinates which
represent the space on Earth is define to be parallel to thex' -axis of the absolute rest frame, the origin of which is definedas the left end of the rod. The rod, which is on Earth, is parallelto this axis.
For this situation, the following relation holds:

Here, V represents the volume in the moving inertial reference
frame.

mo observed on Earth can be approximated by absolute rest frame,
and furthermore, it is possible to regard an observer on Earth asa stationary observer in that approximate location. It is
explained later how, in time like this, an observer on the surfaceof Earth will observe the physical phenomena of other inertial
reference frames.

v2


vx 
 t 

C2 


(38)

x  vt 

(39)

C2

1
2 

1  v  C2 The Earth, which we assume to be an inertial reference frame,is related to the absolute rest frame by these relational
expressions. Consequently, any kind of celestial body does not
simply travel in the Universe; rather it is firmly connected with
an absolute rest frame.
The above relational expressions show that the time, space andeven the masses of all celestial bodies depend on the respective
absolute velocities of those celestial bodies and that they exist
as unique physical quantities that characterize each of them.
Accordingly, it is inferred that there are no universal physicalquantities common to the motion and forces of all celestialbodies.

we use the Einstein tensor, warping of space described by
Riemannian geometry is expressed by:

Expressed another way, establishing universal physicalquantities common to all systems is only possible in an absoluterest frame.
5.8 Time dilation effects and proper time
From the discussion of the previous section, the following time
dilation effects can be predicted. When we regard the Earth’s
surface as approximating an absolute rest frame, then an
astronaut in a rocket launched from the surface of the planet isin a temporal environment in which time runs slower than thatfor an observer on Earth, which is regarded as approximating an
absolute stationary system. If they meet again after a long
period, the astronaut will see that many years have passed for
the Earth-bound observer but not for him. This is referred to asa time dilation effect.
The twin paradox, which occurs in Einstein’s theory of relativity,
cannot occur with the time dilation effect considered here. In
this instance, the rocket cannot return to Earth without turning
around through 180°. This turn is explained in terms of theabsolute theory that considers acceleration. Here, theacceleration and deceleration of the rocket are not taken into
account and the scenario should be considered with caution
since it is limited to the special condition of constant velocity.
The relationship between the absolute and proper times in an
inertial reference frame is given by:
to 

1
2 

1  v  C2 



t

(40)

Therefore, when v  0 , time flows equally. In contrast to thisabsolute rest frame, time that depends on the velocity of each
respective inertial reference frame is defined as proper time.
Consequently, all the celestial bodies drifting through the
Universe have proper time determined by their respective
absolute velocities. Furthermore, the objects within thesesystems are governed by their proper time and the mechanicalproperties that the objects possess are also assumed to differ.
5.9 Conversion of all forces to absolute rest frame (unified
field)The discussion has thus far been based on the special case that
does not consider acceleration or gravity. Einstein introduced
the equivalence principle and the general principle of relativity,
which consider inertial mass and gravitational mass to be thesame, and this completed his general theory of relativity.

G   T

(41)

Here, G is the Einstein tensor and T is the energy
momentum tensor.
In Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the coefficient  istaken to be a constant. For a weak gravitational field, it is given
by:


8G
C4

(42)

where G is the universal gravitational constant.
However, according to the above discussion, in a pair of inertial
reference frames that have different absolute velocities, theframes may show individual gravitational constants dependingon each of the absolute velocities.
The effects of the absolute velocity of inertial reference framesthat do not consider the effects of acceleration (which we havediscussed above) are all manifest by stretching of afour-dimensional absolute rest frame (including the time axis).
In contrast, systems that have acceleration (such as agravitational field) exhibit warping of spacetime, which isexpressed using four-dimensional Riemannian geometry.
Accordingly, fields for discussing the fields associated withgeneral mechanics, electromagnetic force, and gravity in a
unified manner are inferred to be in a four-dimensional absoluterest frame, which is expressed by Riemannian geometry.
5.10 Approximation field for absolute rest frame
When the absolute velocity of Earth is sufficiently small
compared to the speed of light (i.e., when v2 / C 2  1 ), then it
is possible to assume in approximate terms, space and time
defined by a stationary observer on Earth as an absolute rest
frame and an absolute time. For this case, physical phenomenon
in a moving inertial reference frame observed from Earthsurface appear as contractions of space and time infour-dimensional Cartesian coordinates (including the timeaxis). Physical phenomena associated with acceleration are allobserved as curvature of spacetime, which is expressed infour-dimensional Riemannian geometry.
For example, the reason why muons generated by cosmic rays
showering down on the Earth are observed is explained by
Einstein’s theory of relativity as being due to contraction ofproper time and distance of the muons, which are greater thanthose on the Earth’s surface.
However, the absolute theory gives an alternative explanation,
which is the opposite to the above explanation. That is, themuon as a moving system, when examined uniformly in an
approximate absolute stationary system viewed by an observeron the Earth’s surface, appears as stretching of Earth time and isobserved by the subsequent stretch of distance. At this time, astationary observer on the muon, which is a moving frame, willobserve an extremely short half-life, which indicates that themuon has been generated on the Earth’s surface. The observed
moving distance is short.
5.11 Composite and absolute velocities
The absolute velocity of a certain inertial reference frame istaken to be v . For a stationary observer in that inertial
reference frame, the constant velocity of a distant object in the
direction of movement of the inertial reference frame is taken to
be v' . The absolute velocity when a stationary observer in an
absolute rest frame observes the distant object at a fixed speed
to the inertial reference frame is taken to be u . In this case,
Einstein’s velocity combination rules are given by:
v' 

u v
1  uv / C 2(43)

Consequently, Einstein’s special theory of relativity states thatphysical phenomena are governed only by the relative velocity
v' given above.
In contrast, from the perspective of absolute theory, touniformly consider physical phenomena observed in a state ofzero absolute velocity and in a moving inertial reference frame,an absolute rest frame and an absolute argument are essential.
However, the absolute theory has the major problem that no
absolute velocity has been determined that can be classified as afundamental physical quantity.

thus far been interpreted as a principle of relativity under the
principle of the constancy of the speed of light was consideredfrom the perspective of an absolute principle that is based on
the principle of the constancy of the speed of light. Thus, its
development provides us with a physical world view that iscompletely opposite to the one that Einstein gave us.
Einstein’s theory of relativity consists of the principle ofrelativity and the principle of the constancy of the speed of light,
which appear to be mutually contradictory. Thus, the theory
appears to contain self-contradictions. In contrast, the absolutetheory appears to be consistent with the principle of theconstancy of the speed of light.
This paper reconsiders Einstein’s theory of relativity from acompletely opposite perspective to his theory (namely, it is anabsolute theory). In Einstein’s general theory of relativity theenergy and momentum of a moving system appear as curvaturein Riemannian geometry via conversion.
In the absolute theory proposed here, a field that has neither
momentum nor mass is an absolute rest frame that is expressedby Euclidian geometry. Any mass in that field appears as energy.
In addition, when we try converting a moving inertial reference
frame into an absolute rest frame, the presence of absolute
velocity manifests itself in the absolute rest frame as elongationof space and delay of time. It is also evidenced in the form of
increased mass and energy.
Einstein’s general theory of relativity expresses acceleration andgravitation as curvature of space and changes in time.

To avoid this problem, it is thought that Einstein stated that it is
not necessary to introduce the concept of an absolute rest frame
into the physical world. However, as has been argued above, anabsolute rest frame is essential to discuss movement and forces
in a unified manner. This inference seems to be a point that Suto
insists upon, as mentioned above.

In its natural form, absolute theory is incorporated in Einstein’s
general theory of relativity. Consequently, space constructed in
Riemannian geometry by Einstein’s general theory of relativity
is established in an absolute rest frame. Therefore, it is inferredthat a unified field for motion and mechanics may be in an
absolute rest frame.

In the expression for the composite velocity in Eq. (43), the twoabsolute velocities u and v appear as unknown quantities.
In contrast, the time difference and relative velocity v' aremeasurable quantities. From their relationship, we can assume it
is possible in theory to determine the absolute velocity.

In this paper, we developed Einstein’s theory of relativity using
a completely opposite theory. Even if this concept werecompletely wrong, the use of the principle of the constancy ofthe speed of light as a rule for defining space and time in amoving inertial reference frame and the application of an
independent explanation for the results of the Michelson
Morley experiment may assist in understanding Einstein’s
theory of relativity.

It may be possible to measure the absolute velocity from thevariable quantity of energy given by Eq. (34) and theelectromagnetic waves that are generated.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, Einstein’s special theory of relativity which has

we have frequently said that mistakes in expressions andtextbook entries can be revised using just an eraser and a pencil,
that there is no fear of failure, that it is important to challenge at
all times, and that to do nothing is the best way to avoid failing.

However, the author feels that these attitudes have allowed me
to ponder again the greatness of Einstein’s concepts expressedby his theory of relativity.

Aluminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science, Third Series, Vol. 34, No. 203(Nov), 1887.
[2] K. Suto: Violation of the Special Theory of Relativity as Proven by
Synchronization, Physics Essays 23, 3, pp. 511519, 2010.

References[3]http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/physicists-finding-raises-relatively[1] A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley: On the Relative Motion of Earth and the-huge-question-was-einstei/19623415 ] (Sep. 7, 2010).