Guest Post by Richard Benish
He proposes a serious experiment by playfully contrasting the perspective of physicists today with the perspective of a mythical race of rotonians who live on the inside of a sphere. I enjoy this sort of creative thinking.
Introduction: The Great Unknown
How far into the foundations, when it comes, must the revolution penetrate? —
Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. : Harvard-trained physicist, 1986. [1]
What happens when a small body is dropped into a larger body with a hole through its center? If gravity is a force of attraction, then the small body will oscillate from one end of the hole to the other, in agreement with the theories of Newton and Einstein. Whereas if accelerometers tell the truth about their state of motion, nothing ever pulls the test object downward. It will therefore not pass the center. The apparatus needed to conduct this experiment may be called a Small Low-Energy Non-Collider. It was proposed by Galileo in 1632, but has not yet been done by humans. Why not?
We thus have two kinds of questions:
1) What happens when a small body falls into a hole through a large body? This is a physics (“hard” science) question.
2) Why don’t we find out? Why haven’t humans explored this region of the physical world, right under our noses? This is a sociological (“soft” science) question.
Physics is regarded as a hard science because its statements about the world are often expressed as equations or graphs that facilitate clearcut comparison with empirical data. Figure 1, for example, tells us that most everything we know about gravity-induced radial motion traces back to evidence gathered over the surfaces of large gravitating bodies. Below the surface, inside matter, the path that extends through the center to the opposite side, is unexplored territory.
Unfortunately, most physicists just pretend to know what resides in this unexplored territory. They routinely invoke theories and authorities as substitutes for data. This is not how science is supposed to work. The fact of the data gap below the surface (red question mark) is a sufficiently compelling reason to insist on doing the experiment. Physicists cannot really be certain that the small body even passes the center, much less oscillates in the hole, without actually doing the experiment.
As suggested above, the non-oscillation prediction is correlated with a consistent belief in accelerometer readings, in contrast to the standard practice of only selectively (if at all) believing accelerometer readings. As indicated in Figure 2 (near the end of §2) a modern physicist’s decision whether or not to believe an accelerometer is influenced by the presence, proximity and connection to large bodies of matter. It has to do with our conception of gravity.
To see the effect of this influence, we’ll explore a circumstance in which it is totally absent. We’ll do this by invoking the perspective of an imaginary civilization of technologically advanced beings who have no conception of gravity. This is possible for sentient beings who have evolved, not on an astronomical body of matter, but in a huge rotating space station far from any stars, planets or moons, in the outskirts between the galaxies. Inhabitants of this world care a great deal about their state of motion. They have accordingly developed an instinctive respect for accelerometer readings. Earthians do not typically think in terms of accelerometer readings, which correlate with the tactile, flattening of their undersides. Instead we gauge our state of motion by visual evidence. Earth is huge compared to ourselves and seems visually “at rest.” This causes us to unthinkingly follow our primitive predilection to regard Earth as static, in stark contrast to accelerometers all over the surface that say it moves. The answer to the sociological question: Why don’t we find out what happens? is primarily that this ancient predilection overrides our empirical ideals.
A contributing factor to this answer is that the culture of academic physics is such that its members are embarrassed to admit that they have overlooked this “spot”—this huge expanse of unexplored territory—right under our noses. Happily, in her blog and elsewhere, Dr. Kirsten Hacker has shared her perspective from experience as a 20-year member of the physics community—which corroborates my impression as an outsider— as to the fallibility of physicists and their inclination to succumb to peer pressure. (See [2] )
With a critical eye, we will revisit the core of Einstein’s work, which purports to justify the visually-based, unmoving Earth, “relativistic” perspective. Some advice from Newton indicates a possible advantage to the contrasting tactile, accelerometer-based perspective. An important overlap in perspectives concerns ideas of spacetime curvature, which Einstein had deduced with help from an analogy between gravity and uniform rotation. Explorers from the imaginary civilization alluded to above consiously experience gravity for the first time when they visit Earth. They agree with some of the logic by which Einstein deduced spacetime curvature, but they think a large part of Einstein’s interpretation of his own analogy is upside down and backwards. So they flip it and then build on the analogy to deduce the existence of a fourth spatial dimension.
The dimension of time also plays an important role in our aliens’ investigation. The primary measuring instruments of time are, of course, clocks, which serve also to measure speed. Einstein’s theory of gravity (General Relativity, GR) makes definite predictions for how the rates of clocks vary because of gravity. Our aliens have reasons to be particularly suspicious of GR’s prediction for the rates of clocks inside matter—especially at a massive body’s center. The aliens are suspicious, not only because GR’s prediction has not been tested, but because the pattern of clock rate variation correlates directly with predictions for the result of Galileo’s experiment. In both GR and the aliens’ model there is a tight relationship between gravity-induced clock rate variations and gravity-induced radial motion. It is therefore of great importance to probe this vast region of unexplored territory,
to at last test and discover the nature of this relationship—especially, to find out whether it’s Einstein’s or the aliens’ perspective that rings true.
The aliens’ view concerning clock rates on and inside gravitating bodies traces back to their firm prediction that the test object in Galileo’s experiment does not oscillate. Their newly hatched hypothesis of matter and gravity, in turn, leads to correspondingly radical cosmological consequences. They are now eager to tie their new discoveries and ideas concerning nearby bodies of matter to observations of the night sky and its spectacle of stars and galaxies.
Finally, the aliens apply their new appreciation of gravity to a nagging problem in both theirs and Earthians’ world models concerning the arrow of time. Accelerometers seem to be saying—perhaps even shouting—that the otherwise enigmatic arrow of time is interdependent with the arrows of gravity, space and matter:
2. Veneration of Accelerometers
The theoretical scientist is compelled in an increasing degree to be guided by purely mathe-
Albert Einstein, 1934 [3]
matical, formal considerations in his search for a theory, because the physical experience of the experimenter cannot lead him up to the regions of highest abstraction.
Einstein was a man of principle. He seems to have loved formal, abstract principles more than he loved the physical world. Formal principles served Einstein well as enduring marketing tools, the more so, the more vague and maleable they were. Among Einstein’s inventions were the Equivalence Principle, Mach’s Principle, the Principle of General Covariance, the General Principle of Relativity, and the Relativity of Simultaneity of the Equivalence Principle, Okon and Callender have written “there are almost as many equivalence principles as there are authors writing on the topic.” [4] In a book about Mach’s Principle, 21 different interpretations are listed in a special index. [5] In a
book about the Relativity of Simultaneity, renowned physics historian Max Jammer quotes
Einstein’s remark that it is “the most important, and also the most controversial theorem
of the new theory of relativity.” Jammer’s 2006 book ends with his assessment:
“Despite this unprecedented sophistication, the question of whether [any one interpretation of the Relativity of Simultaneity] is correct has not yet reached a final or generally accepted satisfactory solution.” [6]
Is the spirit of Einstein laughing uproariously, or rolling in his grave? The point is that Einstein’s work permeates such a mucked up “understanding” of things, I think, that the actual facts of physical reality are likely to remain buried as long as Big Al retains his godly status. For the purposes of trying to get Galileo’s experiment done, the most important example is the prevailing denial of clear-cut meaning of accelerometer readings. In the work of Einstein the problem traces back to his “Principles of Relativity.” The general version asserts, in essence, that no matter what kind of motion
an observer may be undergoing, she is justified to regard herself as being in a state of rest. If there’s any motion taking place, it’s always the rest of the Universe. That’s what relativity theory is all about: the claim that it’s always the other guy—all of the other guys who move. Me, I’m always at rest. (’Cuz I’m special. Insane? Yes!) Most of Einstein’s high-falootin principles boil down to this nutty, obsessive denial of self-motion. Einstein’s perspective and the General Principle of Relativity are clarified by the following examples—first, involving linear acceleration, and second, involving angular acceleration. In his popular book on relativity, Einstein prepares his readers for an understanding of his theory of gravity by writing: It is certainly true that the observer in the railway carriage experiences a jerk forwards as a result of the application of the brake, and that he recognises in this the non-uniformity of motion (retardation) of the carriage. But he is compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a ‘real’ acceleration (retardation) of the carriage. He might also interpret his experience thus: ‘My body of reference (the carriage) remains permanently at rest [my emphasis]. With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period of application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards and which is variable with respect to time. Under the influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner that their original velocity in the backwards direction is continuously reduced. [7]
It should be noted that modern authors have sometimes criticized Einstein’s appeal to a “general principle of relativity.” But these criticisms do not go far enough, in my opinion, because they fail to root out the lingering troublesome effects of the idea that one can justify a claim of being “permanently at rest.”
The troublesome nature of this claim becomes especially obvious, as Einstein attempts to extend it to not just linear acceleration, but also to angular acceleration (rotation). Einstein presents the scenario of an observer residing on a uniformly rotating disk. Even though the visual and tactile experience of this observer provides convincing evidence of his motion, Einstein argues that the observer on the disc may regard his disc as a reference-body which is ‘at rest’; on the basis of the general principle of relativity he is justified in doing this. The force acting on himself, and in fact on all other bodies which are at rest relative to the disc, he regards as the effect of a [static] gravitational field. Nevertheless, the space-distribution of this gravitational field is of a kind that would not be possible
on Newton’s theory of gravitation. But since the observer believes in the general theory of relativity, this does not disturb him. [8]
Presumably, Einstein would not have been “disturbed” to suppose the existence of a second disk with an observer rotating in the opposite direction. One “not really” rotating observer says the whole rest of the Universe rotates clockwise. The other “not really” rotating observer says the whole rest of the Universe rotates counter-clockwise. It’s crazy to think either of them has a logical leg to stand on. Both of these observers suffer the effects of motion (e.g., flattened undersides and slow clocks). Whereas observers at rest with respect to the rotation axes suffer no such effects. Surely logic dictates that the observers who suffer the effects of rotation are in fact rotating and the axis-observers, who suffer none of these effects, are not.
Was Einstein just trying to rack up points for boldness? Was he just testing his audience to see how gullible they are? Please understand that these proposals violate all common sense. Their “logic” requires a complete mental disconnect from physical reality, “up to the regions of highest abstraction.” Slamming the breaks, hitting the gas, waltzing or break dancing—every instance of self-motion causes the whole rest of the Universe to move, while I remain “permanently at rest.” That’s the bill of goods this operator is trying to sell (even to himself).
Ironically, for all the rational and valid criticism that may be inveighed against the founding principles of GR, because of its well known assortment of empirical successes, the final theory stands as our best model of gravity. Some of these successes need more careful scrutiny—as Dr. Hacker has often pointed out. But the more secure ones — involving light paths, clock rate variations, and orbiting bodies within the Solar System and some distant astronomical bodies as well—are not so clearly, if at all, predicted by rival theories. GR stands, arguably, unopposed by any serious alternatives.
Furthermore, it may be objected that believing accelerometers is not likely to yield a better theory because it already leads to the seemingly preposterous idea that Earth and all massive bodies are perpetually expanding. Our aliens do have cogent answers to this, among other seemingly fatal objections to the idea that accelerometers tell the truth. But all the talk and all the mathematical analysis in the world is not going to settle the matter, as would a quiet glimpse at the workings of Nature itself. Best for everyone to just shut up so that we might hear what physical reality has to say, to at last listen to that trampled-on inner physical world that has not yet been given its rightful, central place in the discussion. Meanwhile, as we await that fateful silent moment, let us press on, doing what we can to make it happen.
3. Rules, Principles, and Physical Reality
Rule I
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not thepomp of superfluous causes.
Rule II
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Sir Isaac Newton 1686
Members of the imaginary alien civilization that we referred to in the previous sections live in the rotating world of Roton. We call them Rotonians. As they see it, life in their cylindrical world is made possible by the absoluteness of its rotation, as indicated by various observations. Among the most important of these observations are accelerom- eter readings. Without knowledge of the existence of Isaac Newton, when Rotonians encounter an astronomical body (planet) for the first time, they instinctively abide by the Rules copied above. Which means that they interpret the accelerometer readings found around the globe as indicating that matter is accelerating itself outwardly; that matter is not static, it is an inexhaustible source of perpetual propulsion. Since the cause of the non-zero readings on accelerometers attached to Roton is absolute acceleration, this is most likely the cause of the readings found on accelerometers attached to planets. To suppose otherwise would be to “affect the pomp of superfluous causes.” So they reason—knowing, of course, that they need more evidence to prove it.
Before setting the scene of Rotonian physics and technology which inspires them to probe the Universe and leads to their fateful journey, it should be pointed out that the change in perspective gained by doing so could well have dawned on any Earthian physicist who deigned to objectively consider the facts.
The two Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy opening this section might have sufficed to provide the needed inspiration. Einstein’s rotation analogy, which relates certain facts and experiences on a gravitating body with those of an observer on a uniformly rotating body, may have provided the inspiration. Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, which is itself a kind of analogy, might independently have provided the inspiration. Combining these analogies with Newton’s Rules makes the Rotonian assessment nearly inescapable. Yet Einstein and his followers have assiduously escaped it.
Almost as an obsession, Einstein sought “A theory in which all states of motion of coordinate systems are—in principle—equal. . . . We want to use this equivalence as a basis under the name of “general principle of relativity.” [10]
figure
If an observer’s state of motion is uniform, she will float without feeling any physical stress (tension or compression): no flattened undersides or stretched oversides. Whereas, if an observer’s state of motion is accelerated (pulled from “above” or pushed from “below”) she will in fact feel it as such. The observer (or balloon—see Figure 3, for example) will in fact suffer one-sided stretching or squishing. Why would anyone in his right mind want to say that these obviously different states of motion are “equal” when the effects are so clearly different?
Because, perhaps, it perpetuates the primitive delusion that matter is made of static chunks of stuff. Insofar as Einstein’s general principle is sellable at all, perhaps it’s because virtually all Earthians suffer from the same delusion. And yet Einstein’s mar- keting tools contain tantalizing invitations to flip the gestalt switch that he seems to be straining, with all his powers of denial, to not flip. Einstein is confronted with plenty of evidence that he is awkwardly holding the switch upside down. His audience cheers because Big Al is the star of the show. Both performer and audience are unmoved by the flagrant violation of Newton’s Rules unfolding before them, being bought and sold as the unquestioned “fact” of static matter.
Ironically, in the vast and sometimes colorful literature on Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (hereafter, EP) we sometimes find authors who playfully suggest, in effect, believing accelerometer readings. We’ll consider three examples. The principle was originally proposed to explain the empirical fact that all falling bodies—whether they are heavy, light, or composed of any chemical species of matter—appear to have the same downward acceleration. The equal falling of all bodies is explained not as a consequence of equal downward accelerations of the falling bodies, but as the “equivalent” upward acceleration of the ground.
Sam Lilley thus defines the EP: “There is no means of distinguishing between the effects of constant gravity and those of a constant acceleration of the observer.” He continues: So the simplest interpretation of what we observe would be to say that we are accelerated . . . If we insist on maintaining that we are [at rest], we have to invent this distinctly odd force to explain what we observe about things falling.
Could the [attractive] force of gravity be . . . illusory? It looks as if there may be some sense in saying that the force of gravity is an illusion that arises because we deny being accelerated when we really are. [11]
In his remarkable book, Relativity Visualized, L. C. Epstein expressed the idea similarly: “Einstein’s view of gravity is that things don’t fall; the floor comes up!” [12] And J. Richard Gott III explains:
Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations [accelerating in a rocket ship and a state of rest on a gravitating body] looked the same, they must be the same.
If gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth’s surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time . . . The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things! [13]
Just as Lilley and Epstein ultimately discard this line of thought, Gott backs out by claiming: “The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.” But adding spacetime curvature to the explanation is not sufficient to validate the claim: “the floor (Earth) simply comes up.” In Einstein’s theory the curvature of simple cases like this is patently static. The equation from Einstein’s theory that best describes gravity around the Earth or Sun is Karl Schwarzschild’s well known exterior solution, which represents a spherical body’s static field.
To claim validity to both ideas: “the floor comes up” and “the geometry of a gravita- tional field is static” is to defend a blatant contradiction. We might call it Trumpian physics. The only purpose served by trying to have it both ways is to confuse anyone not wise enough to see that doing so obscures the truth, thereby providing a foggier hiding place. Rotonians think that in physics, as in the rest of the world, there is such a thing as truth. In physics it is always best to seek and clearly expose the truth, never to shirk from or hide it behind a curtain of foggy abstractions. Properly functioning accelerometers are utterly truthful instruments. One’s undersides are flattened or they are not. This is an absolute physical fact. It arises because of the in-your-face difference, the stark inequality between accelerated and uniform motion.
Unfortunately, the assertion of a physical difference between zero and non-zero accelerometer readings (unflattened and flattened undersides) was seen by Einstein as an “epistemological defect.” He therefore tried to convince himself and his audience that he was doing everyone a favor by fixing the defect. Clarity was not one of Einstein’s dominant characteristics. He preferred, rather, the comforting mudfog of his principles. In the following passages we witness Einstein’s defense of his principles and corresponding flagrant denial of the truthfulness of accelerometer readings:
The theory sketched here overcomes an epistemological defect that attaches not only to the original theory of relativity, but also to Galilean mechanics, and that was especially stressed by E. Mach. It is obvious that one cannot ascribe an absolute meaning to the concept of acceleration of a material point, no more so than one can ascribe it to the concept of velocity. Acceleration can only be defined as relative acceleration of a point with respect to other bodies. [14] (My emphasis.)
The above was published in 1913. The following is from 1914:
One would try in vain to explain what it is that one should understand by the pure and simple acceleration of a body. One would succeed only in defining the relative accelerations of bodies with respect to each other . . . We base our mechanics on the assumption that a force (cause) is necessary for creating an acceleration of a body, ignoring the fact that we are unable to explain what it is that we are to understand by “acceleration,” precisely because only relative accelerations can be an object of perception. [15] (My emphasis.)
Were they socially sensitive sentient beings, every accelerometer in the Universe would cringe and forcefully object to this absurd disrespect from Earth’s illustrious “genius.”
4. Rotonians
In the case of the rotation of the coordinate system: there is de facto no reason to trace centrifugal effects back to a ‘real’ rotation. —
Albert Einstein : Letter to correspondent, A. Rehtz, 1953. [16]
4.1 Context: Historical, Physical, Imaginary
Written in 1953, the above quote (from a paper by John Norton) tells us that Einstein’s views on motion, or its alleged absence, changed little, if at all, from 1913 to nearly the end of his life in 1955. As though a physicist has the option to trace centrifugal effects back to a fake rotation, or some such baloney. Following a quote from the same letter, physics historians Juergen Renn and Tillman Sauer state: “If the acceleration field of such a rotating frame of reference could be interpreted as a gravitational field, then rotation could be conceived as a state of rest.” [17] Based on the assumption that Earth and its gravitational field are essentially static, Einstein claims that the non-zero accelerations experienced by rotating observers, are equally indicative of a state of rest.
figure
By contrast, Rotonians instinctively regard sets of non-zero accelerometer readings found in both systems as indicating equally absolute accelerations. The motion is just as real in both cases, even as they exhibit distinct differences. Rotation is of a material body immersed against a largely discontinuous background that doesn’t rotate. But, as the Rotonians will soon come to discover, gravitating bodies affect their surrounding backgrounds in a decidedly continuous way. Ultimately, Rotonians will regard both kinds of motion as stationary, hence they are analogous, but they realize the importance of distinguishing between them, i.e., where the analogy breaks down.
Rather than get any further ahead of ourselves, let’s build up the Rotonian perspective step by step, to clarify how they come to see the similarities and the differences between rotation and gravity.
To any Rotonian the assertion that rotating observers can claim to be at rest is wildly preposterous. Rotonians nevertheless see the silver lining in Einstein’s rotation analogy because it echoes their own discoveries bearing on the possible utility of non-Euclidean geometry. So important was this connection that science historian John Stachel referred to it as “the ‘Missing Link’ in the History of General Relativity.” Stachel wrote:
Einstein’s treatment of this problem is of interest . . . because it seems to provide a ‘missing link’ in the chain of reasoning that led him to the crucial idea that a nonflat [i.e., non-Euclidean] metric was needed for a relativistic treatment of the gravitational field. [18]
The contrasting ideas emerging before us—only one of which stands to be vindicated by unequivocal evidence—are illuminated by following this missing link along the chain to its natural conclusion. On one hand is the perspective of a young planet-based civilization, represented by its iconic genius theoretician. On the other hand is the perspective of the “off-world” accelerometer-believing Rotonians. The former (Einsteinians) are deeply affected by their primitive impressions of living on a static chunk of stuff. Seeing some similarity between their gravitational experience and the effects found on a rotating body, their representative (Einstein) proposes that the rotating body can also be seen as staticallyresting. Whereas the latter (Rotonians) are convinced of the absoluteness of rotational motion. When they discover similar effects on the first astronomical body they encounter, Rotonians ascribe these effects to motion, as they always have.
The stage is clearly set for a showdown. Rotonians have come to the same juncture as the Einsteinians, where everyone agrees that the well worn (flat) geometry of Euclid has limits that may be usefully transcended by introducing the idea of spacetime curvature. Einstein’s curvature is static and its cause is unknown. By deducing that curvature is caused by motion, in contrast, the Rotonian view stands as a potential advance in our understanding of gravity. The history leading to Einstein’s perspective is well known. In what follows we add some detail to the story of how the Rotonians have come to this juncture, beyond which, only the truest of the two conceptions (static or moving) will survive. Let’s therefore begin with a few details of Rotonian history and the physical parameters of their world.
Rotonian origins are only partly known. Their evolution spans millions of years, perhaps not unlike human Earthians. Unlike Earthians, however, Rotonians never had an external Sun to worship. Their internal energy source remained entirely obscure until the recent era in which they’ve realized the possibility of finding some answers by scientific research. Rotonians have deduced that the structure of Roton must have been built by an absent, most likely distant civilization that “planted” the ingredients needed to promote their emergence in this cosmic locale, as an experiment, to see what may grow and evolve, without further interference.
Fast-forwarding to a stage of mathematical, scientific, and technological development similar to the early part of Earth’s third millennium, we reflect on a few of the Rotonians’ key discoveries of the previous few thousand years. When Rotonians’ understanding of geometry and mechanical science were comparable or superior to Earth’s Newtonian era, they measured the size and motion of their world. We will use this data to quantify key facts having to do with later developments involving the speed of light, the rates of clocks, and how these developments mesh with Rotonians’ mathematical explorations into non-Euclidean geometry.
By contrast, Rotonians instinctively regard sets of non-zero accelerometer readings found in both systems as indicating equally absolute accelerations. The motion is just as real in both cases, even as they exhibit distinct differences. Rotation is of a material body immersed against a largely discontinuous background that doesn’t rotate. But, as the Rotonians will soon come to discover, gravitating bodies affect their surrounding backgrounds in a decidedly continuous way. Ultimately, Rotonians will regard both kinds of motion as stationary, hence they are analogous, but they realize the importance of distinguishing between them, i.e., where the analogy breaks down.
Rather than get any further ahead of ourselves, let’s build up the Rotonian perspective step by step, to clarify how they come to see the similarities and the differences between rotation and gravity.
To any Rotonian the assertion that rotating observers can claim to be at rest is wildly preposterous. Rotonians nevertheless see the silver lining in Einstein’s rotation analogy because it echoes their own discoveries bearing on the possible utility of non-Euclidean geometry. So important was this connection that science historian John Stachel referred to it as “the ‘Missing Link’ in the History of General Relativity.” Stachel wrote:
Einstein’s treatment of this problem is of interest . . . because it seems to provide a ‘missing link’ in the chain of reasoning that led him to the crucial idea that a nonflat [i.e., non-Euclidean] metric was needed for a relativistic treatment of the gravitational field. [18]
The contrasting ideas emerging before us—only one of which stands to be vindicated by unequivocal evidence—are illuminated by following this missing link along the chain to its natural conclusion. On one hand is the perspective of a young planet-based civilization, represented by its iconic genius theoretician. On the other hand is the perspective of the “off-world” accelerometer-believing Rotonians. The former (Einsteinians) are deeply affected by their primitive impressions of living on a static chunk of stuff. Seeing some similarity between their gravitational experience and the effects found on a rotating body, their representative (Einstein) proposes that the rotating body can also be seen as staticallyresting. Whereas the latter (Rotonians) are convinced of the absoluteness of rotational motion. When they discover similar effects on the first astronomical body they encounter, Rotonians ascribe these effects to motion, as they always have.
The stage is clearly set for a showdown. Rotonians have come to the same juncture as the Einsteinians, where everyone agrees that the well worn (flat) geometry of Euclid has limits that may be usefully transcended by introducing the idea of spacetime curvature. Einstein’s curvature is static and its cause is unknown. By deducing that curvature is caused by motion, in contrast, the Rotonian view stands as a potential advance in our understanding of gravity. The history leading to Einstein’s perspective is well known. In what follows we add some detail to the story of how the Rotonians have come to this juncture, beyond which, only the truest of the two conceptions (static or moving) will survive. Let’s therefore begin with a few details of Rotonian history and the physical parameters of their world.
Rotonian origins are only partly known. Their evolution spans millions of years, perhaps not unlike human Earthians. Unlike Earthians, however, Rotonians never had an external Sun to worship. Their internal energy source remained entirely obscure until the recent era in which they’ve realized the possibility of finding some answers by scientific research. Rotonians have deduced that the structure of Roton must have been built by an absent, most likely distant civilization that “planted” the ingredients needed to promote their emergence in this cosmic locale, as an experiment, to see what may grow and evolve, without further interference.
Fast-forwarding to a stage of mathematical, scientific, and technological development similar to the early part of Earth’s third millennium, we reflect on a few of the Rotonians’ key discoveries of the previous few thousand years. When Rotonians’ understanding of geometry and mechanical science were comparable or superior to Earth’s Newtonian era, they measured the size and motion of their world. We will use this data to quantify key facts having to do with later developments involving the speed of light, the rates of clocks, and how these developments mesh with Rotonians’ mathematical explorations into non-Euclidean geometry.
…………..
For the the complete article, please click on the pdf download link below.
Kirsten Hacker 
Excellent!
LikeLike