So we have problems with "clocks measureing time"?

[Doctordick]

Well well, the big guys are beginning to think about the problems in their definition of time [i.e., to quote Gambini et. al.: "a fundamental limit exists on how accurate a clock can be" and "Every physicist notes, upon being introduced to quantum mechanics, that the role of the variable 't' is somewhat artificial! One is expected to believe the existence of a perfectly classical external clock to the system in observation and to treat time as a classical variable."

Have a look at the May and June 2004 papers by Gambini, Porto, Pullin

http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0406260
"Realistic clocks, universal decoherence and the black hole information paradox"

http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0405183
"No black hole information puzzle in a relational universe"If you read those articles carefully, you will comprehend that they are saying that "time" is an interaction parameter convenient to describing the phenomena being observed and not the reading on an "ideal clock" and that recognizing this fact leads to resolution of a disturbing paradox. Surprise surprise guys; it leads to a lot more if you look at it carefully.

Maybe some of you "bright guys" will think about this a little more carefully in the future! You might learn something. I refer particularly to a few rather hasty posts by a number of physics forum minds: quotes are taken from the specified threads.

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=116385#post116385
We are not worthy.I think you hit the nail on the head!
Your post, and the website linked therein, makes some immediate, unmistakable crackpot claims:

1) "In the same vein, I hold that Einstein’s error (an error which has plagued science for almost 100 years already) was that he assumed clocks measured time."
<snip>
By the way, the conflict between (general) relativity and quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the definition of the word "clock," no matter what you might think.
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=196205#post196205
Time is a very useful concept used in physics. My argument with physicists (and, by the way, I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics) is that they are very confused by the ancient (pre-Einstein) idea that clocks measure time. In fact, it is my position that Einstein himself was confused by the idea (a careful analysis of Einstein's work reveals, to any thinking person, that he proved clocks do not measure time.

My position is very simple, though "time" is a very useful concept, it is not a measurable variable and physicist make a major error by assuming it is! Can you understand my complaint?Apparently no one could though it seems some of the big guys are lately at least beginning to comprehend the existence of a problem! I am afraid there is a lot more to it than they have yet seen!

In any case, I've been lurking in this thread (Hurky is doing just fine - no need to bust his groove), and I agree with Hurkyl. DrD, you're arguing a pretty trivial (non-existent) semantic issue. And your thought experiment doesn't say anything new, surprising, or useful.Well, it seems now that some of the big guys have found a reason to look a little closer though I doubt they comprehend the extent of the conundrum created by their failure to consider the limitations on their "definition of time".

Sorry I will be out of the country for the next few weeks but I will look for any responses when I get back in town.

Have fun -- Dick

[terrabyte]

a perfect clock would need a motion element that is unchangable regardless of ANY relativistic effects, inertial gravity or otherwise.

but where would you find such a creature that completely ignores the rest of the universe and does its own thing?

and even if you DID find one, who's frame does the clock tell true time in? everyone will see a different rate still according to their frame <assuming Special Relativity with length contractions and time dialations still holds>

[Russell E. Rierson]

Here are some interesting papers Dr. D:

http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00003125/

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=622019




Abstract:

It is postulated there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined. It is concluded it is exactly because of this that time (relative interval as indicated by a clock) and the continuity of a physical process is possible, with there being a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time. This explanation is also shown to be the correct solution to the motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally conceived by the ancient Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea. Quantum Cosmology, Imaginary Time and Chronons are also then discussed, with the latter two appearing to be superseded on a theoretical basis.




http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php



A bold paper which has highly impressed some of the world's top physicists and been published in the August issue of Foundations of Physics Letters, seems set to change the way we think about the nature of time and its relationship to motion and classical and quantum mechanics.

[...]

In the paper, "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity", Peter Lynds, a 27 year old broadcasting school tutor from Wellington, New Zealand, establishes that there is a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time, and in doing so, appears to throw age old assumptions about determined instantaneous physical magnitude and time on their heads.

[4newton]

Clocks have nothing to do with time.

When clocks change as they leave the zero reference frame time continues at the same rate in the zero reference frame. Clocks change because they are not very good timekeepers. They change just because they are not compensated for the change of their environment. Just as poor timepieces do not compensate for temperature. Real time is absolute and it is the time from the Big Bang. If you had clocks even the poor ones we have today and they all started from the Big Bang and moved out with the expansion in all directions they would all tick at the same rate. All the clocks would tell the same time of, for example 22,255,356,574.0022001 light years.
I have been developing an absolute clock.

[Muddler]

... All the clocks would tell the same time of, for example 22,255,356,574.0022001 light years.
I have been developing an absolute clock.

1. Since when has lightyears been a valid unit for the measuring of time ?? :uhh:

2. You can't just say that your idea describes an absolute clock! Every clock mankind was so far able to develop is based on physical processes. We can't just assume that these procesesses are happening in identical ways under very different circumstances (which means different locations, speeds,...).
I think that is the problem we are talking about here - that time-measuring has so often been equalled to time itself...

3. If you say, the whole universe is an absolute clock, then it is surely hard to disagree with you. The problem is that there is no use in this "clock": sure, it exactly displays the time since the BigBang, but the only valid information we get by that is, that now is now - wow! To be useful for any physical application, we need at least some kind of unit, and I don't have a clue how to "scale" the dynamic change of the universe... (ideas welcome!)

I haven't read the papers and articles linked above yet, so I might be repeating something already said there.

I think, that time is not an entity by itself, such that it can be defined as a discreet dimension or something similar.
The concept of time is something our mind needs to deal with the reality of
change in the world sourrounding us.

I hope you agree with me, that time is only useful when describing dynamic events. The concept of time can not be reasonably applied to a totally unchanging state (which is surely hard to find in reality - if not impossible).

That doesn't mean that I think of time not being real - it is undoubtedly an unignoroable aspect of reality (as we perceive it at least...) and absolutely useful when describing physical events in a mathematical way.

But still science has not brought us sufficient answers about the nature of time.

I'd like to bring up a little philosphy here:

Q: What would be (theoretically) the shortest useful period of time (which should then be the "smallest unit") ?

A: (I think) The shortest period of time change can happen in.

That brought me to two possibilities (and two problems!):

1. There is no "minimum interval", which means change can happen in infinitely small periods of time. And that means we will never be able to calculate anything really accurately (which Heisenberg that said we can't anyway...)

2. There is a physical limit to physical change. That would mean, there has to be a "shorter" interval, in which the universe is behaving totally static.
That would give us the opportunity to define distinct points of time, but would still make it impossible to really measure time, because we cannot determine how long these "empty intervals" are... (no change - remember?)

So I'm kind of stuck here :cry:

If anyone can help me out: please do!

P.S. this problem of the "shortest interval" is something Lama is dealing with from a mathematical point of view:
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31836
(He started several threads, this is only one of them. If this one does not appeal to you, try another.)

[russ_watters]

I have been developing an absolute clock. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

[Prometheus]

1. Since when has lightyears been a valid unit for the measuring of time ??

Since the concept was created. Light years use units of space and time. If light years can be used as a valid unit of measuring space, then why should it not be equally valid as a unit for measuring time? In fact, it is. The star Sirius is 9 light years away. This tells us its distance in space. It also tells us its distance in time, when the light that we now see left the star.

I hope you agree with me, that time is only useful when describing dynamic events. The concept of time can not be reasonably applied to a totally unchanging state (which is surely hard to find in reality - if not impossible).

Everything changes all of the time (note the requirement of time). Nothing is static over time with respect to the universe.

Q: What would be (theoretically) the shortest useful period of time (which should then be the "smallest unit") ?

A: (I think) The shortest period of time change can happen in.

I am not sure of the value of this question. When you speak of change, I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are refering to change in space. Using time as a measure of change in space is a very Newtonian concept. Time now has far more value than this, to me and to many others. Rather than using time as a measure of motion through space, time can also be used as a measure of interaction in space, as space-time. Here is where the major progress is being made, in my mind.

1. There is no "minimum interval", which means change can happen in infinitely small periods of time. And that means we will never be able to calculate anything really accurately (which Heisenberg that said we can't anyway...)

Infinitely small periods of time doesn't really have any meaning to me. What is the applicability of such a concept? Anyway my watch keeps really accurate time. Or, am I misunderstanding what "really" means to you.

2. There is a physical limit to physical change. That would mean, there has to be a "shorter" interval, in which the universe is behaving totally static.
That would give us the opportunity to define distinct points of time, but would still make it impossible to really measure time, because we cannot determine how long these "empty intervals" are... (no change - remember?)

The universe is not static. Change occurs at the speed of light. If it were possible to stop all light in the universe for an interval, then time would stop and you would have your static interval. I believe that this is not possible. Of course, it is possible to narrow the context, increasing simplicity and reducing accuracy and meaning, by which it is possible to assume, or pretend, that the universe is behaving completely statically.

[chroot]

Since the concept was created. Light years use units of space and time. If light years can be used as a valid unit of measuring space, then why should it not be equally valid as a unit for measuring time? In fact, it is. The star Sirius is 9 light years away. This tells us its distance in space. It also tells us its distance in time, when the light that we now see left the star.
The light-year is a unit of distance. It is absolutely not a unit of time, no matter how you'd like to argue it. The year is a unit of time. You are correct that for a universe that is not expanding, the time it takes light to travel x light-years is x years. Thus the distance and the time are numerically equal -- but they are not completely equal. One is a unit of distance, the other is a unit of time.

Our universe is expanding. This expansion means that an object whose light took nine years to reach us is actually a little further than nine light-years away, because the universe has expanded during those nine years.

- Warren

[4newton]

In general terms a measurement between two points is distance.
In trying to avoid the concept of explaining time in terms of time I tired to use general concept of measurment between two points, distance.

If time is a dimension the same as any other spatial dimension then the measurement between points in the time dimension is a measurement of distance.

If time started at the Big Bang and the dimension of transition from the Big Bang is the time dimension then time is the distance from the Big Bang to the current location of the universe.

Your question about the smallest measurement of time.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm

The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.

Answered by: Dan Summons, Physics Undergrad Student, UOS, Souhampton


You may make a clock that counts the number of Planck lengths that you pass through. The clock would than indicate the number of Planck lengths from the Big Bang until the present.

[Prometheus]

The light-year is a unit of distance. It is absolutely not a unit of time, no matter how you'd like to argue it.

No matter how I would like to argue it? I do not consider that thıs is a meanıngful offer. Your statement has nothing to do with how I might argue it, and everything to do with your reaction to how I argue it.

All measurements of time involve measurements of motion through space. Our units of time are all dependent upon motion through space, and all units of motion through space are dependent upon units of time. For example, the unit of time of the solar year is based on the distance that the earth travels through space. To say that only one perspective is valid and that the other absolutely must be ignored is narrow sighted, in my opinion.

The fact that the speed of light is typically considered only in terms of a measure of motion through space does not mean that it absolutely cannot be understood to have value in the necessarily symmetrical perspective of motion through time. In fact, the speed of light is often used for its time value, and not for its spatial value.

However, I do not wish to argue with you on this, as you seem very absolute in your opinion.

[Doctordick]

Hi Russell,

I shouldn't be on the internet as I have lots of details to get to today before I leave but I thought I would comment on your response. First, I think the articles you reference are fundamentally based on the time problem I am trying to get people to face but I know that the solution I have discovered is totally beyond their comprehension. Physicists have major problems with their concept of time and haven't yet recognized it.

I do not believe Wheeler is the intellect Feynman was; at least not if he thinks Peter Lynds has solved Zeno's paradox. Now I didn't know Zeno personally but I believe (and there exist others who feel the same way) that Zeno's paradox has to do with the issue of continuity of time. The real central issue is that one can establish an infinite number of specific positions for the tortoise without including the end point.

What is significant here is the infinity itself. And, Paul, if you do happen to read this, you should find that issue significant. What is important is that one assumes (without any real defense) that the tortoise has passed through every moment between the start and the finish. It has to be an assumption as it cannot be verified. By the very definition of infinity, we cannot examine an infinite number of cases (no matter how many we examine, there is always another which must be looked at).

The answer to the problems they see that all physicists presume is that time (on the infinitesimal level) is discontinuous; space (say, are we talking about the structure of the ether here????; -- just a joke guys) and time are kind of foamy on the infinitesimal level! It's the wrong answer guys! Our coordinate system is an abstract mental structure and is simply not bound by the necessity that it must exist in reality; it is bound only by the necessity that we can think of it. Nonetheless, there is a real problem here and I have the right answer and I can explain to anyone if anyone would take the care to listen (that is what I have been looking for, not praise and/or accolades but rather, just a patient student).

Physics is supposedly an exact science. What that means is that every issue is presented in such a manner that the deductions can be expressed without possibility of error (presuming no mistakes are made): i.e., the extent and impact of the assumptions are also part of that deduction. The problem is that very few (if any; if one takes my experience into account) scientists take the trouble to establish the "exactness" of their statements.

Think of the establishment of human knowledge as a monolithic structure. We have been working on that structure for thousands of years and the total is a vast building which would take a lifetime to even walk through. The major problem with scientific research is that anyone who knows enough to add seriously to the structure only knows the room he has been living in. The higher up one gets, the more difficult extending the structure becomes as every new piece requires the support of everything which has come from below.

Everyone working way up in those ivory towers has total confidence in the foundations because he is aware of all struts in the floor below him which are required to keep the floor of interest to him stable. When he runs into a problem, he presumes it has to be with the support immediately below his work. It cannot be a misalignment of the basic foundation or that whole monolithic structure wouldn't be standing there as it does. Others would be having problems too. How do you think the deep thinkers of the dark ages came to discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin (yeah, I know it never happened but it's an allegory of things that did).

When I got my Ph.D. I was quite dissatisfied with a lot of the beliefs I was expected to accept. Instead of working myself up to the higher floors (which is the goal of most all neophytes), I instead wanted to get a close look at the basement first. Most exact scientists would rather avoid thinking about it; they kind of leave that option to the philosophers as it is awful dark and forbidding down there. And, besides that, very respectable thinkers have been poking around down there for thousands of years without coming up with anything really useful up above.

Well, maybe those who went to look had their minds on the wrong things. Maybe they are looking at the mortar between the stones instead of looking at exactly where the weight of the upper structure bares on those stones. In or order to do that one has to understand exactly what support is required and what support is not.

Now, when I got down there, I discovered something very significant. Don't worry about it guys; it is significant whether you believe me or not. I have a lot of trouble trying to explain what I found because everyone wants to translate what I am saying into what they know is true. The problem is that there is a very fundamental difficulty with any such translation. What I am talking about cannot be translated into your picture of the universe unless that picture is totally without flaw (if your picture were without flaw, I guarantee it would be translatable and I can actually show that, believe it or not). On the other hand, everything you know to be true can be understood in terms of the picture I am trying to present if you would only take the time to look at that picture.

The solution of the problem resides in an internally consistent interpretation of a number of concepts significant to understanding itself. Russell, I think we were well on the way to comprehension of those concepts when you chose to drop out of the discussion. I am very sorry you did that as I do not feel the ideas are beyond you.

I will be back (hopefully) in about eighteen days. Between times I will have no contact with the internet to speak of. Think about what I have said and leave me a note. I will respond as seems reasonable.

To the rest of you guys, I don't think you have any comprehension of what this whole brouhaha is all about. I suggest you think about it a little.

Have fun -- Dick

[brodix]

Reality can be described as the relationship between entities and process. The relationship between these two concepts can best be defined as opposing directions of time.

The timeline for the entity goes from beginning to end, while the process goes the other direction, toward the next generation, away from, shedding the old. Think of a factory. The product goes from initiation to completion, but the future of the production process is in the direction of what is yet to be built. Life is the same way. The individual goes from birth to death, but the species is going toward the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin cells. Obviously this relationship works on all scales, as our body is processing those cells that constitute it. (Thoughts are the entities to the process of our mind.)

Einstein said, "Time is what you measure with a clock." He also made the point that everything is relative, so from the relative perspective of the hands of the clock, everything else is going counterclockwise.

Time is a measure of motion. Specifically that of the particular point of reference relative to its context. As context doesn't therefore include that particular point, it isn't an absolute, but is relative to that point, so is effectively moving in the opposite direction of that point. (Temperature is in fact another measure of motion; That of a general level of activity against a predetermined scale. As such, economic statistics constitute a temperature reading of the economy.)

So while our subjective view of time is linear, as we follow the path through our context, objectively it is a process in the context of what is. Past and future do not physically exist because the energy to manifest them is what is the present. Just as a temperature of absolute zero would constitute motionless space, it would also lack any distinction of past and future activity.

The reason this seems logical, but contradicts many common assumptions is because of the intellectual presumption that reality is a manifestation of the abstract, while in fact it is the abstract that is an approximation of reality. This confusion is because our point of reference are our own minds, to which abstraction is our understanding of reality.

[Doctordick]

Reality can be described as the relationship between entities and process.God, please go back to the hole you came out of!!! This is the most asinine response I can conceive of! Intellectual drivel!!

Have fun -- Dick

[4newton]

Expansion and the Time Dimension

We see no evidence that the transition of the universe outward from the Big Bang is a transition in any spatial dimension. Observation indicates that there is no preferred spatial direction and that all distant objects appear to be moving away from us at a rate proportional to their distance, except for demonstrated local attraction. If the transition outward from the Big Bang was in any spatial direction observation of distant objects would indicate a difference in red shift in that direction.

The evidence for the Big Bang, an expanding universe and the lack of influence on the spatial dimensions leaves us with the conclusion that the expansion outward from the Big Bang is occurring in an independent dimension.

By observing a dimension that is independent from the spatial dimensions it is possible to extend our knowledge about the nature of dimensions.

The spatial dimensions have only one degree of freedom of action. It is possible to move or transition in only one direction at a time, and any force applied from a direction different then the line of transition results in a change of direction equal to vector sums. Transition and the vector sums of transition are limited to the speed of light.

There is a complete freedom of direction in the spatial dimensions. Any action of transition may be rotated through out any angle and to any desired degree of resolution.


If the E dimension is an independent dimension then:

The transition in the E dimension is totally independent of actions in the spatial dimensions.

Total independence allows transitions in two or more directions at the same time.

The transitions in independent dimensions do not vector sum to limit the maximum transition to the speed of light.

There is no evidence that the maximum transition rate in each independent dimension is other than the speed of light.

Just as in the spatial dimensions the E dimension has no preference of absolute direction. There is freedom of action through out any angle and to any degree of resolution. The universe is able to expand outward in all directions.

It would appear that actions in the E dimension behave the same as actions in the spatial dimensions

From the above observations it looks like there maybe dimensional constructs that have total independence from each other and within these independent dimensions there are limited independent dimensions.

The question now is the E dimension the time dimension?

[Prometheus]

Think of the establishment of human knowledge as a monolithic structure. We have been working on that structure for thousands of years and the total is a vast building which would take a lifetime to even walk through. The major problem with scientific research is that anyone who knows enough to add seriously to the structure only knows the room he has been living in. The higher up one gets, the more difficult extending the structure becomes as every new piece requires the support of everything which has come from below.

Everyone working way up in those ivory towers has total confidence in the foundations because he is aware of all struts in the floor below him which are required to keep the floor of interest to him stable. When he runs into a problem, he presumes it has to be with the support immediately below his work. It cannot be a misalignment of the basic foundation or that whole monolithic structure wouldn't be standing there as it does. Others would be having problems too.

You have made an interesting set of analogies. When you post some content, I will take a look at it.

[Russell E. Rierson]

The solution of the problem resides in an internally consistent interpretation of a number of concepts significant to understanding itself.


Define the term "understanding".

Comprehension?

"To grasp the nature, significance, or meaning of ".

[terrabyte]

i think what DoctorDick is alluding to obliquely is reality is only relative if we choose to define it as such. we can define reality as absolute with the exact same degree of accuracy with no faults to the system. it's really just a mathmatical and mindset adjustment.

[brodix]

Dr. D.
Your bio mentions that you are retired. It has been my observation that the early stages of Alzhiemers are marked by easily provoked outbursts of temper. I hope you are just closeminded by nature.

As to the Big Bang Theory;
Three dimensions might define a volume of space, they are also a classic coordinate system, of which space does not come with. As the same space can be defined by any number of coordinate systems, then isn't space effectively infinitely dimensional? We all stand on the earth. That doesn't make it flat.

As for geometry, it effectively begins with one, ie. the point. What would zero in geometry be? Empty space? While it might seem obvious that geometry defines space, it doesn't create it, I have on occasion got the impression that mathematicians think otherwise. Of course, throughout history people have thought of reality as a manifestation of the abstract, but as Stephen Wolfram, among others has been pointing out, the abstract is an approximation of reality. As our point of reference is the mind, which is an abstraction of reality, this confusion is understandable.

Which leads me to Big Bang Theory. It occurred to me about fifteen years ago that if the expansion rate is inversely proportional to gravity, a cyclical process would explain this relationship very effectively. Not being a scientist, I don't have the intellect, time, connections or facilities to follow this very closely, but the reading that I have done suggests that it isn't a "slam dunk", though it is often portrayed as one.

The original competing explanation was tired light theory, but I don't see how this would make any sense anyway. If light is encountering resistance, proceeding waves would encounter more than succeeding ones, so the effect would be a blueshift, wouldn't it? Wouldn't energized light make more sense? Sort of a rolling down hill effect, as amplitude decreases, some of this energy goes to expanding frequency, much like a cracking whip.

Obviously I don't have enough of a grasp of optics, but we accept that gravity contracts space and this process is constantly radiating out the constituent energy, so why doesn't this radiation expand our measure of space? Matter contracts, energy expands?(These are also the two directions of time; Einsteins fourth dimension being gravitational collapse forming physical entities and definition. Expansion being the process that is continually forming new entities and definitions, absorbing the content of old ones. Hawking listed one of his directions of time as the expansion of the universe.)

If space expands, but the universe does not, it would seem this energy would create a form of pressure that would potentially affect the gravitational process of galaxies, thus creating the additional speed of rotation currently assigned dark matter.

Which leaves dark energy. Say we accept that light is actually the source of the cosmological constant. The further light travels across the universe, the more likely it is to pass through residual gravitational fields. We know that gravity creates a lensing effect that significantly magnifies this light to various different effects. What does it do to the light waves? Are they blueshifted? Would it be possible that this effect reduces the average redshift of the great majority of light waves from beyond a certain distance? Thus creating the impression that the rate of expansion is increasing.

That the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is smooth at 2.7k could be a phase transition, at which this radiation starts to condense out as matter again.

Maybe Black Holes are primarily the eye of a gravitational storm and the real activity is what we see, collapsing mass, radiating energy.

Generally simple observations, but they seem logical to me, so I hope I haven't offended this august group too much.

[DrChinese]

If I understand DoctorDick correctly, then I think I begin to see the starting point of his perspective.

Time is relative. OK, that makes sense. So a typical clock appears, as a practical expedient, to measure time. But it doesn't actually measure time, because time is relative to each object or particle. Just as location is. When we say that 2 objects are in the same place, we really only mean that they are approximately in the same place. Similarly, when we say use a clock, we are using something that provides an approximation. That makes sense to me too.

So then, just as a tape measure does not actually measure the distance between 2 objects (since it addresses only 3 of 4 spacetime dimensions)... a clock does not actually measure time (since it addresses only 1 of 4 spacetime dimensions. That makes sense.

And finally, I think DoctorDick is saying there is no such thing as a single time dimension shared by all objects anyway - any more than there is a single reference frame for spatial coordinates.

Am I close?

[Prometheus]

But it doesn't actually measure time, because time is relative to each object or particle.

This is a difficult topic. Clocks do measure time, and such measurements are extremely useful, obviously. However, such measurements are useful within the context of motion through space.

If we desire to move beyond Newtonian physics, then the concept of time must move beyond its use merely as a measure of motion through space.

Time and space interact in space-time. Interaction of time with space is therefore the topic du jour, rather than simply the motion of space through time, which is what clocks measure.

Consider two objects and a clock that they both observe. The clock provides a method for them to share an objective perception of time. However, in terms of the interaction of the space of object 1 with its time and the interaction of the space of object 2 with its time, the interaction of the space of the clock with its time is basically irrelevant to both.

Clocks are useful for measuring motion of space through time. They are not nearly as useful for measuring the interaction of space with time.

[4newton]

Clocks do measure time


Clocks do not measure time.

Up to this point clocks simulate time.
This is the same as if you wanted to keep track of how full your swimming pool is as you filled it but had no direct method of measurement. So you take a gallon jar and allow water to go into the jar at some rate that is proportional to the rate that water is going into the pool. In most cases this gives you a pretty good idea of how full the pool is but if your jar changes sizes as you fill the jar you will find your result is different than the pool.

[Prometheus]

Clocks do not measure time.

All cyclic phenomena can be used to measure time.

Up to this point clocks simulate time.
This is the same as if you wanted to keep track of how full your swimming pool is as you filled it but had no direct method of measurement. So you take a gallon jar and allow water to go into the jar at some rate that is proportional to the rate that water is going into the pool. In most cases this gives you a pretty good idea of how full the pool is but if your jar changes sizes as you fill the jar you will find your result is different than the pool.

It sounds to me like the problem here is not whether or not measurement is taking place, but with the accuracy of the measurement.

[brodix]

Motion exists in space. Time is one method of measuring it, specifically, that of the particular point moving through context. While this context may constitute the entire rest of the universe, it is not an absolute because the particular motion is distinguished from it. All motion in the universe exists in a greater equilibrium, ie. space is ultimately flat. So by separating the particular motion from its context, you create a force equivalent to that motion in the opposite direction. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
A child in a car sees the world traveling past the window, not appreciating that he is the one moving. Our ancestors thought the same about the heavens. They must be moving, not the earth. From the perspective of the hands of the clock, everything else is going counterclockwise.
You communicate with another person and while you exist in his future, he hears you in your past. Past and future are simply manifestations of subjectivity. There is only what is. The energy that can ge neither created or destroyed.
In the top down/bottom up dichotomy that which is top down focused hierarchical order defines bottom up distributive growth, while it is the energy of this growth that motivates order and distinguishes what continues and what doesn't. This is time. The order that is the past defines the future and the energy that is the positive future motivates this order. There is no such thing as negative future. It is like 1/0 on a computer. One continues, the other stops.
We just need to reconcile our particular focused subjective path with a distributive objective reality.

[4newton]

All cyclic phenomena can be used to measure time
It sounds to me like the problem here is not whether or not measurement is taking place, but with the accuracy of the measurement.

I do not understand why it is so difficult for any one to accept the fact that time is real.
Time is just as real and just a simple as riding in your car and taking note of the number of blocks you pass. The only problem is that you don’t have flashing markers as you move along the time dimension. In order to keep track of our movement in the time dimension we make artificial time markers that we call clocks.

It is true that you may make any cyclic device like a clock or oscillator and refer to it to give you some indication of time. These devices are not connected to and in no way measure time.
You may also use the same device to tell you how far you have gone in a car even though it is not connected to the wheels of the car. That is however not a direct measurement.

We have found that the clocks we make change with the environment. As we move our clock in a different reference frame we find that they slow down. To make an absolute clock that tells absolute time you need to either find a way to measure some type of marker in the time dimension or find a mechanism that does not change in a relativity type environment.

The first thing you need to do is determine the physics of clocks. How and why they mark time.

[Prometheus]

It is true that you may make any cyclic device like a clock or oscillator and refer to it to give you some indication of time. These devices are not connected to and in no way measure time.

I am not sure that I understand the difference that you are trying to create. You say that clocks can act as indicators of time, but not as measurers of time. What is the difference?

By the way, do you have any units by which you are able to measure time, such as years for example? I am just wondering if you have any way to measure time for yourself.

To make an absolute clock that tells absolute time you need to either find a way to measure some type of marker in the time dimension or find a mechanism that does not change in a relativity type environment.

The first thing you need to do is determine the physics of clocks. How and why they mark time.

The idea of an absolute clock is not very useful, in my opinion, both because there is no such thing, and if there were it would not be possible to use such a clock to measure anything useful.

Again, it seems to me that your complaint against clocks has to do with their accuracy, not with their fundamental function or usefulness. Am I misunderstanding you?

[Russell E. Rierson]

If I understand DoctorDick correctly, then I think I begin to see the starting point of his perspective.

Time is relative. OK, that makes sense. So a typical clock appears, as a practical expedient, to measure time. But it doesn't actually measure time, because time is relative to each object or particle. Just as location is. When we say that 2 objects are in the same place, we really only mean that they are approximately in the same place. Similarly, when we say use a clock, we are using something that provides an approximation. That makes sense to me too.

So then, just as a tape measure does not actually measure the distance between 2 objects (since it addresses only 3 of 4 spacetime dimensions)... a clock does not actually measure time (since it addresses only 1 of 4 spacetime dimensions. That makes sense.

And finally, I think DoctorDick is saying there is no such thing as a single time dimension shared by all objects anyway - any more than there is a single reference frame for spatial coordinates.

Am I close?

I think so Dr. Chinese

Of course, there is no preferred frame of reference, but the metric of space-time can be defined by events, such, that there is no space-time if there are no events.

[Chronos]

Assuming an 'absolute clock' even existed, how would you prove it?

[terrabyte]

build 2 copies of the clock, accelerate one and subject it to extreme temperatures, gravity (how?), and other things that could induce a change in cyclic rates, then compare it to the one you didn't touch

that's my guess anyways

[brodix]

Also,"dimension" may be reductionistically descriptive, but is an entirely subjective projection. We think of time as what it takes to move through space, but the space isn't an absolute. Any and all references are in motion, as is the point of reference.
Think of your point of reference as a jet engine. Yes it moves through context, but context is moving through it. As it pulls in one direction, force is created in the opposite direction.
The assumption is that entropy is the ultimate measure of time. That is, the irreversable changes that occur. Entropy refers to a closed set, though and reality cycles lost energy throughout any number of closed sets. That is why it is a relationship between entities and process. Entities are the closed sets that go from beginning to end and process goes onto the next generation of entities. So change is only a function of subjective information, not objective energy.

[Prometheus]

build 2 copies of the clock, accelerate one

If one can be accelerated with respect to the other, then the idea of "absolute" cannot hold meaning, can it? In my opinion, the only possibility for an absolute clock is a clock where the word "absolute" is defined into meaninglessness.

[terrabyte]

If one can be accelerated with respect to the other, then the idea of "absolute" cannot hold meaning, can it? In my opinion, the only possibility for an absolute clock is a clock where the word "absolute" is defined into meaninglessness

no idea what you mean by that. if one clock can be subjected to events that would normally induce a change in cyclic rates yet the end result is no change in timekeeping compared to the same type of clock that was not subjected to these forces, does it not stand to reason that the clock is not affected by these events?

[Prometheus]

no idea what you mean by that. if one clock can be subjected to events that would normally induce a change in cyclic rates yet the end result is no change in timekeeping compared to the same type of clock that was not subjected to these forces, does it not stand to reason that the clock is not affected by these events?

What I mean by that is I that I think that it is not possible, even theoretically, for such a clock to exist. Are you suggesting that you think that it is indeed possible, or are you speculating on the possibility?

If you think that it is indeed possible, please provide some type of details of such a clock.

[brodix]

Time is an abstraction. The old assumption,Theism, Platonism, Cartesianism, is that reality is a manifestation of the abstract. The emerging view is that the abstract is an approximation of reality. Time is just one method of defining and measuring motion.

[Prometheus]

Time is just one method of defining and measuring motion.

This sounds very Newtonian.

Can you list other ways that you know of to measure motion?

[terrabyte]

i'm not saying such a clock exists. i'm saying that's the way you would be able to determine an "absolute clock"

whether it exists or not is not my field of study :D

i'm not about to hunt down theoretical particles using equipment cobbled together from houshold objects.

[4newton]

I am not sure that I understand the difference that you are trying to create. You say that clocks can act as indicators of time, but not as measurers of time. What is the difference?

By the way, do you have any units by which you are able to measure time, such as years for example? I am just wondering if you have any way to measure time for yourself.?


Time is absolute. Time is our motion with respect to the time dimension. The time dimension is no different than any other dimension. The only difference from the spatial dimensions is that we are moving through the time dimension at a rate equal to the speed of light. Because velocity is the movement in a dimension with respect to time you can not use velocity as a measure of movement or transition in the time dimension. I have tried to eliminate confusion by going to a general term of transition. I use locity as the definition of transition. Transition in the time dimension is then tlocity. You may also use the term for other dimensions xlocity, ylocity, or zlocity.

The idea of an absolute clock is not very useful, in my opinion, both because there is no such thing, and if there were it would not be possible to use such a clock to measure anything useful.

I agree things that don’t exist are not useful. If one did exist than you would be able to use it to navigate in space at high velocity and know where you are with out stopping to take a reading of the stars. You would also be able to have total secure communication with an algorithm that decoded based on absolute time segments. Even navigation of today would be a lot simpler. There are many more uses and any that use time today would benefit. I know it would be of great use to me because I will make money on it.


Again, it seems to me that your complaint against clocks has to do with their accuracy, not with their fundamental function or usefulness. Am I misunderstanding you?

Accuracy is not the main reason although an absolute clock would be more accurate. The main reason is that all clock would agree in all reference frames.

[4newton]

Assuming an 'absolute clock' even existed, how would you prove it?

You prove that you have an absolute clock by taking one on the twin paradox space ship when you return back to the other twin the two clocks would still agree.

[4newton]

If you think that it is indeed possible, please provide some type of details of such a clock

I do not wish to tell you about the design of my absolute clock at this time but I can assure you that there is a method to make a clock that uses physical laws that do not change with the change of reference frame or that you can identify and compensate for changes that are due to change of reference frame. If you can ever come to realize that time is not a mystery and is real then anyone may discover how to make an absolute clock.
Don’t try to over complicate a simple function. It is interesting that people deny anything that they can’t see, or feel. You see it all the time when pilots start trusting there senses and not their instruments.

[ArmoSkater87]

4newton, just want to tell you that time IS NOT absolute.

[ArmoSkater87]

t=t'/\sqrt{1- \frac{v^2}{c^2}}

This is the time dialation equation. It shows that time is not absolute...which has been proven by Einstein.

[4newton]

This is the time dialation equation. It shows that time is not absolute...which has been proven by Einstein.

Your equation does not explain or state the nature of time.
The equation tells you what a normal clock will read in a relativistic environment. This is a transform function and is used to convert measurements of different reference frames.

[brodix]

Prometheus,

Time measures the particular point of reference moving against its context.

Temperature measures a general level of activity against a predetermined scale.

Economic statistics are a form of temperature reading.

At absolute zero, there is no motion, presumably just empty space, therefore there is no cause and effect, no past and future.

[Prometheus]

Time measures the particular point of reference moving against its context.

Is that all time is?

At absolute zero, there is no motion, presumably just empty space, therefore there is no cause and effect, no past and future.

Is absolute zero more than just a theoretical concept? Has absolute zero ever been achieved? Is it possible to achieve?

The attributes of absolute zero that you enumerate seem, to me, to indicate perpetual absolute zero, rather than temporary. Is this a correct assumption?

[brodix]

Prometheus,

Is that all time is?

Yes, that's why you can change the context, such as with the twins paradox and the measure of time changes.

Is absolute zero more than just a theoretical concept?

That depends on the meaning of theoretical. It is not that it is simply a product of someones imagination, but it is like having space without time. Or one side of a coin, but not the other. In other words, it would lack the physical dimensionality to exist, but is a fundamental basis of logic.

Has absolute zero ever been achieved? Is it possible to achieve?

No. I'm not sure this is the scientific way of putting it, but for one thing, any attempt to measure it would introduce motion and therefore temperature. It is like Schrodinger's cat. You can't open the box. So, actually there is no way to know.

The attributes of absolute zero that you enumerate seem, to me, to indicate perpetual absolute zero, rather than temporary. Is this a correct assumption?

It really does amount to space without time, so just as zero functions as the center point of real numbers, but does not actually represent one, it is the centerpoint of time. The present without reference to any concept of past and future. So, yes, the present is perpetual.

One of the points I like to make is that geometry doesn't incorporate zero, so it starts with the point as one. The problem this creates is the tendency to think of space as only a function of measuring the objects in it, but we have found that math doesn't make much sense without a zero. For geometry, zero would be empty space. This means space, not the subjective occupation of it, is the more fundamental aspect of reality.

[ArmoSkater87]

Your equation does not explain or state the nature of time.
The equation tells you what a normal clock will read in a relativistic environment. This is a transform function and is used to convert measurements of different reference frames.

Exactly!! Then why did u say that time is absolute?? You just said it isnt by saying clocks measure differently depending on the reference frame. I didnt mean that equation to explain the nature of time, i was only showing that time is not absolute.

[4newton]

Then why did u say that time is absolute??

I think you missed my earlier post.
Clocks have nothing to do with time. Time is our movement or transition in the time dimension. Clocks are a second order means of measurement they only simulate time. All of the theory of relativity is a theory of clocks not of time it self. The theory of relativity states how clocks change with reference frame not time.

[terrabyte]

yep

time is absolute. clocks are relative
distance is absolute. meters are relative

[brodix]

terrabyte,

How would you describe time?

[Muddler]

Everything changes all of the time (note the requirement of time).
You just state something here. Can you prove it? I am just wondering, if we can find intervals of time that are so small, that no change can be observed.


I am not sure of the value of this question. When you speak of change, I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are refering to change in space. Using time as a measure of change in space is a very Newtonian concept. Time now has far more value than this, to me and to many others. Rather than using time as a measure of motion through space, time can also be used as a measure of interaction in space, as space-time. Here is where the major progress is being made, in my mind.
I spoke of "change" but you might also say "interaction". All I wanted to do was to choose an universally applicable word for dynamic processes, so I do not have to talk about such a specific thing as motion. The main point here was that the concept of time is only useful when dynamics are involved and obviously you agree with me there.



Infinitely small periods of time doesn't really have any meaning to me. What is the applicability of such a concept? Anyway my watch keeps really accurate time. Or, am I misunderstanding what "really" means to you.
If we want to understand the nature of time we might need to find out if there is a "smallest unit" (For a long time we thought of atoms being the smallest unit of matter, now we reached the level of quarks and I think there will be at least two more levels, but that doesn't belong here)
I only tried to form a picture about what we might find (or not find) when trying to explore time's smallest units. If there is such a smallest unit then that would be my idea of "real accuracy".


The universe is not static. Change occurs at the speed of light. If it were possible to stop all light in the universe for an interval, then time would stop and you would have your static interval. I believe that this is not possible. Of course, it is possible to narrow the context, increasing simplicity and reducing accuracy and meaning, by which it is possible to assume, or pretend, that the universe is behaving completely statically.
Of course the universe is not static. That's not what I am saying. I suggest you read the whole post #5 again to better understand my question, because I don't want to quote all of it again here.
I am just thinking about the possibilities and consequences of the nature of time, which means infinity opposed to absoluteness of "smallest units".
But I am afraid I am still not making it clear...
Try me again!

[brodix]

Muddler,

The only problem is in trying to understand time without reference to units. The measurement of units would seem to be a function of the spatial definition we are observing.
The entity of time goes beginning to end, but the process of time goes on to the next, shedding the old. Our desire to understand focuses on the entity, shutting down the process. This is space, not time. Time is energy, not information.

[terrabyte]

time = the measurement rate at which things in our universe experience change. a comparison of these values(present) compared to values(past)

[Prometheus]

I am just wondering, if we can find intervals of time that are so small, that no change can be observed.

I think that the answer to this is yes. For me, it is 5 hours, the amount of time I sleep each night and can observe no changes. When cosmologists talk about the Big Bang, there is a smallest unit of time that they can recognize after the Big Bang. Perhaps this is what you mean.

The main point here was that the concept of time is only useful when dynamics are involved and obviously you agree with me there.

OK

If we want to understand the nature of time we might need to find out if there is a "smallest unit"
I only tried to form a picture about what we might find (or not find) when trying to explore time's smallest units. If there is such a smallest unit then that would be my idea of "real accuracy".

OK. I do not think that there is a smallest unit of time, but only a smallest unit of time that scientists can measure perhaps.

3. If you say, the whole universe is an absolute clock, then it is surely hard to disagree with you. The problem is that there is no use in this "clock": sure, it exactly displays the time since the BigBang,

Re this quote from your post #5, I disagree with you about an absolute clock exactly displaying the time since the Big Bang. Since motion through space and time are symmetrical, and since motion through space has not been identical for all space-time since the Big Bang, motion through time has not been identical. Therefore, the universe is not all at the same time, or age.

[russ_watters]

time is absolute. clocks are relative
distance is absolute. meters are relative Time is absolute. The last 100 years of physics discovery disagrees. ...but I can assure you that there is a method to make a clock that uses physical laws that do not change with the change of reference frame or that you can identify and compensate for changes that are due to change of reference frame. [emphasis added] 4Newton, just out of curiosity, have you heard of Special Relativity? If so, what does the first postulate say? ...I do not wish to tell you about the design of my absolute clock at this time 'I know the answer, but I'm not telling you?' What is this, elementary school? (hint: this is not elementary school. If you make an assertion, you are required to substantiate it)

[Muddler]

Muddler,

The only problem is in trying to understand time without reference to units. The measurement of units would seem to be a function of the spatial definition we are observing.
The entity of time goes beginning to end, but the process of time goes on to the next, shedding the old. Our desire to understand focuses on the entity, shutting down the process. This is space, not time. Time is energy, not information.

When I say "unit" I don't mean "minute", by unit I mean "smallest element" or something comparable. I just wonder, if time is really a phenomenon of absolute continuity, or if there is actually something like "steps" in time. Of course that's hard to imagine, but a movie-film looks continuous to us, though everyone knows it is made of single pictures...

The statement that "Time is energy" is not useful in my eyes. What do you mean by that?

[Muddler]

time = the measurement rate at which things in our universe experience change. a comparison of these values(present) compared to values(past)

Great definition! I absolutely agree with you! But just this aspect of change is what brought up my question:

If there is no change to be observed in a certain interval of time, does that mean that no time has passed? If not, then how should we measure that certain period of time?

[Muddler]

OK. I do not think that there is a smallest unit of time, but only a smallest unit of time that scientists can measure perhaps.

Yes! That's what I am after. Because if we are not able to measure it, that means we can't find a dynamic process fast enough to compare with (of course there is also the "technical" part of creating a clock that is more likely to limitate timemeasuring. I am just thinking of the theoretical limit)

And if such a reproducable process can not be found, what would that mean?
If lightspeed is the limit of possible change in the universe, doesn't that mean there has to be a limit to time itself?

Let me explain: The way any clock we created so far is working is by taking a specified dynamic process as a reference. Science is advancing and so is our ability to explore smaller and smaller units of the microcosm.
Let's say we arrive at a physical level of observing subatomic particles and measuring time that is so accurate, that we would need the involved particles to experience change faster than lightspeed, if we wanted to be even more accurate.
For that's not possible, what is the consequence??
I am afraid I'm talking nonsense, but maybe somebody sees what I'm trying to get at...

:confused:

[brodix]

Muddler,

When I say "unit" I don't mean "minute", by unit I mean "smallest element" or something comparable. I just wonder, if time is really a phenomenon of absolute continuity, or if there is actually something like "steps" in time. Of course that's hard to imagine, but a movie-film looks continuous to us, though everyone knows it is made of single pictures...

When we think of units of time, we tend to think of them as sequential. The reality is that they overlap, like generations. The primary natural unit of time is the day(from which flow all its subdivisions). As subjective individuals, we measure days sequentially, but the fact is that the circumference of the earth is populated by individuals who measure overlapping days. From this, two points;

Do you think the sun flashes on and off like a movie projector light, or shines continuously?

The statement that "Time is energy" is not useful in my eyes. What do you mean by that?

As these overlapping days pass, the energy of the sun is warming up one longitude as it is leaving a previous, so while the units of time go from beginning to end, the process of time is going on to new beginnings, leaving old ones behind. This applies to generations of species, as well. The energy is draining away from the old as it is flowing into the new.

The larger point here is that this is how time both appears to flow, while remaining as the present. It is the energy that exists. It is what is present, while the flow of subjective information rises and falls, like a wave passing through the water. As individuals, we are waves/units, so from our relative perspective, it is the water that flows through us, even though from a presumably more objective perspective, it is we who flow through the water. The reality is that there is no such thing as "objective perspective," only degrees of subjectivity.

[russ_watters]

When I say "unit" I don't mean "minute", by unit I mean "smallest element" or something comparable. I just wonder, if time is really a phenomenon of absolute continuity, or if there is actually something like "steps" in time. Of course that's hard to imagine, but a movie-film looks continuous to us, though everyone knows it is made of single pictures... Such as Planck time? Its real and measurable.

I guess you could use increments of Planck time as the basis for a clock scale.

[terrabyte]

Originally Posted by terrabyte
time is absolute. clocks are relative
distance is absolute. meters are relative

Originally Posted by 4newton
Time is absolute.

The last 100 years of physics discovery disagrees

not so. the last 100 years of physics asserts that how we measure time and distance is relative, it says nothing that there can't be an absolute quantity for both those dimensions that we simply haven't found a way to measure them at that level yet.

[Prometheus]

Yes! That's what I am after. Because if we are not able to measure it, that means we can't find a dynamic process fast enough to compare with (of course there is also the "technical" part of creating a clock that is more likely to limitate timemeasuring. I am just thinking of the theoretical limit)

Clearly, I still do not understand your point.

And if such a reproducable process can not be found, what would that mean?

I give. What?

If lightspeed is the limit of possible change in the universe, doesn't that mean there has to be a limit to time itself?

What might you mean by limit? Time does not flow infinitely fast or infinitely slow, if that is your limit. The speed of light is constant in space-time. Therefore, the rate of motion through space and the rate of motion through time are symmetrical. The limit of the interaction of space with time is the speed of light. Is this your question?

Let's say we arrive at a physical level of observing subatomic particles and measuring time that is so accurate, that we would need the involved particles to experience change faster than lightspeed, if we wanted to be even more accurate.
For that's not possible, what is the consequence??

I do not understand what you mean by "accurate." To require that particles move faster than the speed of light, which is not possible, as a condition of anything is not meaningful to me. Do you think that it is possible to exceed the speed of light?

I am afraid I'm talking nonsense, but maybe somebody sees what I'm trying to get at...

:confused:

Sorry, not me.

Incidentally, do you consider that time has significance beyond its ability to be measured as a rate of change?

[Prometheus]

The primary natural unit of time is the day(from which flow all its subdivisions).

Interesting. What are your subdivisions of the day? Where do the month and the year fit within your natural units of time?

[Prometheus]

The last 100 years of physics discovery disagrees

not so. the last 100 years of physics asserts that how we measure time and distance is relative, it says nothing that there can't be an absolute quantity for both those dimensions that we simply haven't found a way to measure them at that level yet.

What? Time and distance are not both dimensions, as you say. I wonder what you mean by this.

How we measure time and space is relative, precisely because time and space are relative. I have no idea what you mean by the word quantity, but absolute metrics for time and space are not part of modern understanding of space or time.

[russ_watters]

not so. the last 100 years of physics asserts that how we measure time and distance is relative, it says nothing that there can't be an absolute quantity for both those dimensions that we simply haven't found a way to measure them at that level yet. You misunderstand Einstein's theory. According to Einstein's theory, those relative distances and times we measure are real and there is no one preferred frame from which to base absolute measurements.

'The speed of light is constant for all observers...' means that it really is constant for all observers - not just that it appears to be constant for all observers.

[terrabyte]

it only is real if you believe that clocks measure time absolutely the same way you would believe meter sticks measure distances absolutely.

if you believed that measurements were relative and arguably fictional implements of the human construct used to define its world, then the easy conclusion is there is some real measurement that all these relative measurments derive from that we simply cannot obtain with our limited scope.

in either case it does not change the way the universe operates, it's just a different take on our existence

[brodix]

Prometheus,

Interesting. What are your subdivisions of the day?

Hours, minutes, seconds. Remember that 8:34:21 in Baltimore isn't the same as 8:34:21 in San Francisco.

Where do the month and the year fit within your natural units of time?

They are natural units as well(obviously). I listed the day as the primary one because it is most immediate to life.
Obviously the month and year are functions of revolution, rather then rotation, so we are all on the same unit. You could say that with the day, since we are scattered around the planet, we are the face of the clock and the sun is the hand, but with the month and year, we are at one point on it, so we correspond to the hands of a solar/lunar clock.

No matter how small a unit of time, it is still a unit; start/stop, on/off, beginning/end,etc. When it is over, it is history and those scientists are on to succeeding present moments as they study their instruments.

[russ_watters]

it only is real if you believe that clocks measure time absolutely the same way you would believe meter sticks measure distances absolutely. Take out the word "absolutely" - it confuses the issue. Clocks measure time and meter sticks measure distance. There is no absolute distance or absolute time.if you believed that measurements were relative and arguably fictional implements of the human construct used to define its world, then the easy conclusion is there is some real measurement that all these relative measurments derive from that we simply cannot obtain with our limited scope.[emphasis added] Certainly, but reality is what it is and is not related to your beliefs. The universe is under no obligation to conform itself to your beliefs. You must learn to accept that if you ever want to "do" science. in either case it does not change the way the universe operates, it's just a different take on our existence Sorry, but your "take" is wrong. It is not how the universe is observed to work.

[terrabyte]

Clocks and meter sticks measure RELATIVE time and RELATIVE distance. you disagree with me on this?

[russ_watters]

Clocks and meter sticks measure RELATIVE time and RELATIVE distance. you disagree with me on this? Sort of - clocks measure time and meter sticks measure distance (is there an echo in here?). Since time and distance are relative, clocks then necessarily measure relative time and distance. In other words, clock and meter sticks measure relative time and distance because there is no other kind. The way you say it isn't quite right and it may be part of what leads you to this:

Where you are going wrong is thinking that if there is a relative time/distance, there must also be an absolute time/distance. There isn't.

[terrabyte]

don't discount that there isn't. since there is nothing specifically disproving such :D

even if there is, as i have said before, it doesn't change the way the universe functions

[Prometheus]

don't discount that there isn't. since there is nothing specifically disproving such :D

Not unless you count the theory of relativity.

[russ_watters]

don't discount that there isn't. since there is nothing specifically disproving such :D Yes, there is. Relativity, as stated. You have made it chrystal clear that you don't understand it. even if there is, as i have said before, it doesn't change the way the universe functions Whether you choose to believe it or not doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about the way the universe operates. I recommend dropping your beliefs and making an honest effort to learn the way things really are.

[terrabyte]

i'll say it again then, the theory of relativity does NOT PROVE that there isn't an absolute space-time reference frame. it just says that there probably isn't one.

and the ONLY reason there isn't one is we CHOOSE to define it that way. It would be very EASY and probably BENEFICIAL to define one reference frame to unify our expressions for Time and Distance, and abolish the silly notion constant light speed relative to the observer. But there's something to be said about cheekiness i suppose

[Prometheus]

i'll say it again then, the theory of relativity does NOT PROVE that there isn't an absolute space-time reference frame.

You are right. Scientific theories such as relativity do NOT PROVE anything. That said, your point is not very meaningful.

and the ONLY reason there isn't one is we CHOOSE to define it that way.

Huh? We? I thought that you were trying to define it your own way.

It would be very EASY and probably BENEFICIAL to define one reference frame to unify our expressions for Time and Distance, and abolish the silly notion constant light speed relative to the observer.

Go right ahead. But don't pretend to do so in the name of the theory of relativity. Since you are so sure that it is so easy, I would suggest that you just do so, but I won't.

But there's something to be said about cheekiness i suppose

Are you congratulating yourself? For what? What is the meaning of this statement?

Look, are you interested in relativity or in some other theory? If you are interested in some other theory, such as your own, then you can define absolute whatevers that you want. If you want to talk about relativity, the idea of absolute anything can only show that you do not understand the theory of relativity.

Can you tell me all of these wonderful benefits that you envision if there were an absolute space-time reference frame? How is it easy? Can you develop such an idea and still maintain the concept of space-time?

[terrabyte]

1. When i say "Meter" people don't ask me "Which meter? at what speed are you moving when you say "meter"

2. When i say "Second" people don't ask me "Which Second? in which frame are you measuring your "Seconds" by?

3. When i say light speed travels at 299,567 (or whatever the number is) km/s there's no confusion as the distance the light travels in one second. the photon can be plotted as a point in space time for ALL observers.

4. speed in the universe is not limited by the speed of light

5. time travel is taken out of the equation (the way relativity defines it is stupid anyways)

6. length contraction and time dialation reduced to mere perceptual errors. calculations can be done by moving observers to gauge the errors in relation to the absolute.

these are among the many benefits we could see by just taking a frame and defining it as the STANDARD in which all other frames are measured to. it is exactly the same thing as we define a standard for how long the meter and the mile are, how hot a celcius is, and how wide a 45 caliber bullet is.

it changes nothing of how the universe operates, it just makes our measurments MEANINGFUL instead of arbitrarily ambiguous dependant on the subject's relative velocity to us.

[russ_watters]

i'll say it again then, the theory of relativity does NOT PROVE that there isn't an absolute space-time reference frame. it just says that there probably isn't one. No, actually, it says if Relativity is correct then there isn't one. So far, Relativity appears to be correct (understatement). So lets put a finer point on it: are you saying that Relativity is incorrect?and the ONLY reason there isn't one is we CHOOSE to define it that way. Nope. It can't exist inside the framework of Relativity. It directly contradicts the theory. Ie, if relativity is correct, then what you are saying must be wrong. It would be very EASY and probably BENEFICIAL to define one reference frame to unify our expressions for Time and Distance, and abolish the silly notion constant light speed relative to the observer. By all means, try it. A great many people have and all have failed. Trouble is, of course, constant light speed (and time dilation, btw) isn't a theory, its data. Its fact. You can't wish it away. these are among the many benefits we could see by just taking a frame and defining it as the STANDARD in which all other frames are measured to. it is exactly the same thing as we define a standard for how long the meter and the mile are, how hot a celcius is, and how wide a 45 caliber bullet is. Try it. You'll find you cannot get the universe to conform to those critereon. There is no theory that can do what you are suggesting because the universe does not work the way you want it to.

Maybe you aren't aware of it, but physicists used to think the universe worked the way you describe. But about 100 years ago, we started discovering things that didn't fit with that model. As a result, that model was discarded in favor of one that works.

[Prometheus]

I only disagree with your first 6 points. For example:

1. When i say "Meter" people don't ask me "Which meter? at what speed are you moving when you say "meter"

When you talk with your friends, they don't ask you which meter. We should accept this as evidence that there is an absolute frame of reference. Furthermore, this somehow makes the meter a unit of speed. Sure.

5. time travel is taken out of the equation (the way relativity defines it is stupid anyways)

Oh, stupid is it? Yes, another excellent demonstration on your part.

these are among the many benefits we could see by just taking a frame and defining it as the STANDARD in which all other frames are measured to. it is exactly the same thing as we define a standard for how long the meter and the mile are, how hot a celcius is, and how wide a 45 caliber bullet is.

it changes nothing of how the universe operates, it just makes our measurments MEANINGFUL instead of arbitrarily ambiguous dependant on the subject's relative velocity to us.

I think that your idea has much more value in a Newtonian context. The benefits that you speak of only appear when the frame of reference is considered absolute. They have no meaning in the context of relativity, where absolute frames of reference are meaningless. Your comments demonstrate that you do not seem to understand the tenets of relativity.

[terrabyte]

so you're saying if i choose one frame as a standard, then it's no longer valid?

because i thought you said all realities based on relative velocities are valid.

if my one frame is valid then there's no problem defining distance and time using the measurements of that frame.

piece of cake

[brodix]

What are space and time? What is the absolute?

While I've argued that time is simply a particular method for measuring relative motion, I would also argue that space is THE absolute.

Einstein proposed that gravity curves space and that it curves it inward to the point of eventual collapse. As he assumed the universe was static, ie. that this curvature was balanced by an opposing force, so that the sum total was flat space, he added the cosmological constant. Since then we have been through all sorts of permutations, Big Bang, Inflation, dark matter, dark energy. Yet logical consensus has been that space must be very close to flat, ie. Omega=1, for the universe to be as stable as it is. There has even been measurements of the CMBR that prove this out.
What is flat space, but an equilibrium around which all forces of expansion and contraction revolve. A standard measure.
What is the absolute? An entirely neutral state in which all distinctions cease to exist. Such as absolute zero, in which all activity has ceased. No cause, no effect, not past, no future. Just empty space. The absolute isn't a point, as that would be a relative reference. It is a state, like space.
If space were created by the Big Bang, wouldn't the speed of light at the singularity effectively be zero, given all space is scrunched to a point?
Is there a zero in geometry? Or has it yet to consider a factor accepted in math a millenium ago? What would zero in geometry be, other then empty space? What is zero in math? Is it a point on the number line, or is it an empty state?
Space lacking past and future is simply what is present.
The problem as it so often is, is that we assume our abstractions are the structure on which reality is built. The reality is that they are just vague approximations.
It is not that space is the absolute.
Is is that the absolute is space.

[brodix]

IT is that the absolute is space.

[4newton]

Try and explain this one.

Consider an experiment that consists of two sources of light at point A and B.
Each light is pulsing at the same rate = R.
In between point A and point B is a moving reference frame moving at a relativistic rate and moving from A to B.
In the reference frame there is a detector that is able to measure the speed of light between the two points C and D.

From the reference frame looking at the pulse rate from source A you see a pulse rate less than R. looking toward B you see a rate faster than R. Doppler shift.

If the speed of light is constant from A to B and from B to A what is the speed of light from A through C to D and the speed of light from B through D to C over the distance C to D and D to C?

Or explain this one.

The difference between clocks in different reference frames.
Clocks are always slower in a faster moving spatial reference frame. Clocks will always be faster in a reference frame at rest then one that is moving. There is no reference frame where clocks run faster than in the rest frame. The rest frame is therefore a preferential reference frame. There is no symmetry.

All clocks stop when the reference frame they are in is moving at the speed of light. Frames moving at the speed of light then must also be considered a preferential reference frame.

The interpretation of the special theory of relativity must therefore be wrong.

We state that time is perpendicular to all the spatial dimensions when we consider velocity.
Velocity = distance / per unit of time

If we plot velocity we show time perpendicular to distance. This holds true for any direction.

We also state that space-time location is x, y, z, t and the difference between two points in space-time is x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2. We are also able to change space-time measurements to distance by x^2 + Y^2 + z^2 – c^2 * t^2. This statement converts time into a distance measurement and also tells us that time has a transition rate equal to C.

Time is therefore a transition at the rate of C.
All things in the universe are moving together at this rate in a dimension that is independent of the spatial dimensions. The dimension of the time transition is considered the time dimension. This is no different then the way other transitions in other dimension are considered.

[russ_watters]

so you're saying if i choose one frame as a standard, then it's no longer valid?

because i thought you said all realities based on relative velocities are valid.

if my one frame is valid then there's no problem defining distance and time using the measurements of that frame.

piece of cake I'm starting to wonder if you're even serious here. What part of "all frames are equally valid do you not understand?" That means that you cannot make one 'more valid' than others, ie, you cannot have an absolute or preferred frame.

For example, we choose earth as the frame from which to base calculations because we live here? Does that (can that) make earth The Universal Reference Frame? No. Why? Because doing so would require that things like time and distance in other frames must conform to time and distance in the earth's frame. Sorry, but you can't, by the power of your choice, force the clocks in GPS satellites (for example) tick at the same rate as those on earth.

[Prometheus]

Try and explain this one.

All clocks stop when the reference frame they are in is moving at the speed of light. Frames moving at the speed of light then must also be considered a preferential reference frame.

The interpretation of the special theory of relativity must therefore be wrong.


Whatever you might mean when you say that reference frames are moving at the speed of light, I suggest that you rethink it.

Everything in space-time always moves at the speed of light, but this does not make clocks stop.

You must mean when reference frames move at the Newtonian speed of light, where 100% of their motion is motion through space and 0% of their motion is motion through time, such that their clocks stop. You won't find such reference frames around this part of the universe, will you? Yet, you presuppose their existence. Please provide an example.

Try and explain this one.

Why don't you explain it.

[terrabyte]

I'm starting to wonder if you're even serious here. What part of "all frames are equally valid do you not understand?" That means that you cannot make one 'more valid' than others, ie, you cannot have an absolute or preferred frame.

For example, we choose earth as the frame from which to base calculations because we live here? Does that (can that) make earth The Universal Reference Frame? No. Why? Because doing so would require that things like time and distance in other frames must conform to time and distance in the earth's frame. Sorry, but you can't, by the power of your choice, force the clocks in GPS satellites (for example) tick at the same rate as those on earth.

Don't you see that sooner or later a preferred reference frame MUST be determined if we are to chart space the way we've charted earth?

in order to bring anything into the realm of known quantities we have to define and adhere to a set of measurement guidelines. what makes you think space will be any different?

you don't need to make the clocks tick the same rate, if they're still ticking at a CONSTANT rate you do calculations based on that to determine their position USING Earth Frame Metrics.

[russ_watters]

Don't you see that sooner or later a preferred reference frame MUST be determined if we are to chart space the way we've charted earth? That would certainly make life more convenient, but too bad: the universe doesn't work that way. in order to bring anything into the realm of known quantities we have to define and adhere to a set of measurement guidelines. what makes you think space will be any different? Clearly you don't know it, but you are the one saying space will be different, not me. Reread the first postulate of Special Relativity. you don't need to make the clocks tick the same rate, if they're still ticking at a CONSTANT rate you do calculations based on that to determine their position USING Earth Frame Metrics. Well certainly! That's what Relativity says! All clocks from the clock's frame tick at a constant rate, though not necessarily the same rate as clocks in other frames. And you can reconcile the differences in rates between different frames - using SR/GR. But one implication of that fact is that there can be no "absolute frame" from which to measure things like "absolute time." An earth centered frame is "preferred" in the sense that we use it out of convenience, but that does not make it an absolute frame of reference.

Maybe the problem is that you don't understand what an absolute reference frame would be like: If there were an absolute reference frame, there would be physical processes that reflected it and as a result it would be possible to build a clock that recorded "absolute time." As it turns out, there is no such frame and no such thing as "absolute time".

It almost sounds like you are starting to understand....but not quite. Keep working at it.

edit: This quote from the beginning of the conversation implies that you do know what an absolute frame would be like (though you are wrong about whether or not it might exist): the last 100 years of physics asserts that how we measure time and distance is relative, it says nothing that there can't be an absolute quantity for both those dimensions that we simply haven't found a way to measure them at that level yet. Are you changing your mind or are you just getting confused?

[russ_watters]

All clocks stop when the reference frame they are in is moving at the speed of light. Frames moving at the speed of light then must also be considered a preferential reference frame.

The interpretation of the special theory of relativity must therefore be wrong.
Yes, that's correct: as you said, your interpretation of SR is wrong. Relativity says you can't have a reference frame that moves at he speed of light. If the speed of light is constant from A to B and from B to A what is the speed of light from A through C to D and the speed of light from B through D to C over the distance C to D and D to C? What does the second postulate of SR say?Or explain this one.

The difference between clocks in different reference frames.
Clocks are always slower in a faster moving spatial reference frame. Clocks will always be faster in a reference frame at rest then one that is moving. There is no reference frame where clocks run faster than in the rest frame. The rest frame is therefore a preferential reference frame. [emphasis added] At rest relative to what?

Certainly there is a personal preference to use your own frame for the measurements and declare yourself to be at rest: that way, you make someone else do all the work reconciling the frames! But that doesn't magically make your frame The Absolute Frame. Indeed, someone could always just beat you up and declare their frame to be the preferred frame.

[terrabyte]

Big difference between an absolute reference frame and an Earth reference frame.

i have an idea of a device that could be used to determine an absolute frame, but that's neither here nor there since i don't have a billion dollars to make it :D

[russ_watters]

Big difference between an absolute reference frame and an Earth reference frame. Absolutely. Nice to see you starting to realize that. i have an idea of a device that could be used to determine an absolute frame, but that's neither here nor there since i don't have a billion dollars to make it :D Well I'll cut you some slack: you don't have to make it, just tell me how it would work.

[omin]

Clocks do not have freedom of choice. Therefore, all clocks are determined. Since all clocks are determined, they follow physical laws perfectly. Every clock is a perfect clock.

[4newton]

Relativity says you can't have a reference frame that moves at he speed of light.
It does not say that. It is interpreted as stating that. It only shows the speed of light as a limit.

My point is that you are overextending the Special Theory of Relativity. The only statement made is that (The speed of light is the same for all observers) and second (The physics is the same for all inertial observers). Nowhere does it state that there is not a zero reference frame and now where does it state what time is. This is only a theory that applies within defined limits.

No mater how much you would like the speed of light to measure the same in my little experiment you can not show how it works.



At rest relative to what?
Relative means just that, it does not exclude a zero or rest frame. You may still have a relation to a rest frame and not violate SR.

If you say there is no rest frame then what is the minimum transition for a reference frame?

[russ_watters]

It does not say that. It is interpreted as stating that. It only shows the speed of light as a limit. Where do you get the idea that theories are open to interpretation? They aren't. Sorry, but the math of SR breaks down at C. That's called derivation. My point is that you are overextending the Special Theory of Relativity. Lol, YOU are the one trying to apply it where it doesn't belong, not me. If you mean I'm reading more into it than is actually there, sorry, but you're wrong. All of this stuff has been derived mathematically and tested experimentally. It works and it is part of SR.The only statement made is that (The speed of light is the same for all observers) and second (The physics is the same for all inertial observers). Nowhere does it state that there is not a zero reference frame and now where does it state what time is. This is only a theory that applies within defined limits. Those are just the postulates. You use the postulates to derive the math. From the math you find out things like you can't have a reference frame moving at C and that time is relative.

The lack of an absolute frame, however, follows both logically and mathematically. If the laws of physics work exactly the same in every frame, then it should be obvious that no one frame can be special. If one frame were special, then the laws of physics would somehow work "better" than in the other frames. If you can't understand that simple logic, there is little I can do to help you.No mater how much you would like the speed of light to measure the same in my little experiment you can not show how it works. :confused: :confused: The speed of light has been measured thousands of times and every time comes out as C. This is experimental fact. You are refusing to accept reality at face value. Relative means just that, it does not exclude a zero or rest frame. You may still have a relation to a rest frame and not violate SR.

If you say there is no rest frame then what is the minimum transition for a reference frame? Yikes. You don't even understand what it means for an object to be at rest relative to something. The most obvious answer to my question is that an object can be at rest relative to itself.

An object cannot be at rest relative to universal reference frame, however, since such a frame does not exist. As I asked terrabyte, if you want to dispute that, tell me how to find this frame. You can't just assert that it exists. Science requires evidence. The universe doesn't conform to your preconcieved notion of how it should work.

People have been trying to find the universal reference frame since the Michelson/Morley experiment without success and our theories work better without it. Conclusion: such a frame does not exist.

[4newton]

Where do you get the idea that theories are open to interpretation?
Have you read some of the posting?

Before I reply to the rest of your comments let us try to resolve one point about reference frames as all else may resolve it self if we reach agreement on this point.

Consider
If you start from your current reference frame ( fz ) and send a clock (A) away at a relativistic speed in all different directions. Each time clock (A) always comes back with less time. Less time indicating that clock (A) ran slower.

You can then conclude that your reference frame ( fz ) is the slowest. Then is your reference frame the same or different than all other reference frames.

In all other reference frames except ( fz ) the clock would come back some of the times with the clock indicating more time. More time indicating the clock had been moving slower than that reference frame.

( fz ) then may be considered the zero or rest frame.

[russ_watters]

Have you read some of the posting? Have you learned any physics outside of internet forums? Your understanding (not "interpretation") of the scientific method (not to mention the laws of physics) is flawed. Consider
If you start from your current reference frame ( fz ) and send a clock (A) away at a relativistic speed in all different directions. Each time clock (A) always comes back with less time. Less time indicating that clock (A) ran slower. So far so good. You can then conclude that your reference frame ( fz ) is the slowest. No. In the first sentence of your thought experiment, you defined your reference frame as being stationary when you said "if you start from your current reference frame..." If you repeat the experiment in any other reference frame, you'll get the same results as predicted by the first postulate. Then is your reference frame the same or different than all other reference frames. Exactly the same (as stated in the 1st postulate of SR).In all other reference frames except ( fz ) the clock would come back some of the times with the clock indicating more time. More time indicating the clock had been moving slower than that reference frame. Nope. Experimentation has shown this to be incorrect. Thus Relativity was born. And just to clarify, the postulate that the laws of the universe are the same for all reference frames wasn't invented by Einstein: it exists in Newtonian mechanics and Galileo's relativity as well. Ironically, you think you're boosting Newton by attacking Einstein, but you're not: you're error is in the part of the theory common to both.

[4newton]

Have you learned any physics outside of internet forums? Your understanding (not "interpretation") of the scientific method (not to mention the laws of physics) is flawed.
Sir I find you lack manners, rigid in you thoughts, and unable or unwilling to comprehend concepts. If you check the methods used by Einstein you will find someone else with methods you do not approve.

Consider
If you start from your current reference frame ( fz ) and send a clock (A) away at a relativistic speed in all different directions. Each time clock (A) always comes back with less time. Less time indicating that clock (A) ran slower.

No. In the first sentence of your thought experiment, you defined your reference frame as being stationary when you said "if you start from your current reference frame..."
The first sentence in no way stated that ( fz ) was stationary.

You jumped to that conclusion, in you mind, after you read the experiment realizing that the experiment taken to its end result does prove frame ( fz ) must be a rest frame and stationary. Your religion of SR will not allow you to be open to this concept.

When you said
If you repeat the experiment in any other reference frame, you'll get the same results as predicted by the first postulate.
In all other reference frames except ( fz ) the clock would come back some of the times with the clock indicating more time. More time indicating the clock had been moving slower than that reference frame.

Nope. Experimentation has shown this to be incorrect. Thus Relativity was born. And just to clarify, the postulate that the laws of the universe are the same for all reference frames wasn't invented by Einstein: it exists in Newtonian mechanics and Galileo's relativity as well. Ironically, you think you're boosting Newton by attacking Einstein, but you're not: you're error is in the part of the theory common to both.

If clocks run at different rates when moving at different velocities as stated in SR

www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Then some clocks moving at a slower velocity when brought back to a clock moving at a higher velocity will indicate more elapsed time indicating it had been running faster.

The statements you make in rebuttal contain no arguments about the area under consideration. I have given you two experiments to question the extent of SR. All you return with is that it violates SR. I am not asking for permission that these concepts pass the SR test. I am stating that SR is unable to explain the results of these experiments.

[russ_watters]

Sir I find you lack manners, rigid in you thoughts, and unable or unwilling to comprehend concepts. If you check the methods used by Einstein you will find someone else with methods you do not approve.
Sorry if you percieve a lack of manners - I'm being blunt, but you need to hear it and accept it. Your understanding is incorrect and the reason is your education (or lack of). That's not an insult, its a fact and an observation. And I do most certainly approve of Einstein's methods. He was an outstanding scientist. You need to accept that you are not Einstein. The first sentence in no way stated that ( fz ) was stationary.

You jumped to that conclusion, in you mind, after you read the experiment realizing that the experiment taken to its end result does prove frame ( fz ) must be a rest frame and stationary. Your religion of SR will not allow you to be open to this concept. I'm sorry, but all you are saying here is that you don't even understand what a reference frame is or how to define one. Defining a reference frame is critical to any measurement - even in Newtonian physics.

Lets look at that sentence (fragment) again: If you start from your current reference frame ( fz ) and send a clock (A) away at a relativistic speed in all different directions. What is the reference frame (not its name, give me a description) and what are you doing with respect to that reference frame? In all other reference frames except ( fz ) the clock would come back some of the times with the clock indicating more time. More time indicating the clock had been moving slower than that reference frame. Asserting it over and over does not make it true. Let me repeat: this has been shown by experiment to be false. The statements you make in rebuttal contain no arguments about the area under consideration. I have given you two experiments to question the extent of SR. All you return with is that it violates SR. I am not asking for permission that these concepts pass the SR test. Reread the explanation just above and at the bottom of the previous post. I'll repeat it one more time: what you propose has been shown by experimentation to be false. It reflects your personal view of how you want the universe to work, not how the universe actually works.

Forget SR, look at the evidence. Maybe you had some preconcieved notion of what I'd argue, but you are putting words in my mouth I didn't say. This quote: If you repeat the experiment in any other reference frame, you'll get the same results as predicted by the first postulate. Does not say that your idea is wrong because it violates SR, it says your idea is wrong because experiments show it to be wrong. I mention SR only to add the fact that the predictions of SR do match the experimental results. I am stating that SR is unable to explain the results of these experiments. Yes, I know. This statement is factually inaccurate. The body of evidence for SR is truly massive. Show me one actual experiment that doesn't fit with the predictions of SR.If clocks run at different rates when moving at different velocities as stated in SR... They do. Then some clocks moving at a slower velocity when brought back to a clock moving at a higher velocity will indicate more elapsed time indicating it had been running faster. Slower relative to what? Slower relative to your hypothetical universal reference frame? Once more: experimentation has shown that this frame does not exist.

Maybe a little reality will help: You've heard of GPS, right? GPS satelites have extremely accurate clocks on board that are synchronized to a clock on the ground. These clocks are so accurate that SR (and GR) effects must be taken into account when synchronizing them. Since the satellites are on a number of different orbital inclinations, they should show variations in tick rate depending on their orientation with respect to the earth's motion through your proposed universal reference frame. This is your thought experiment (albeit somewhat more complicated). Clocks in GPS satellites do not show the behavior you predict.

And have you heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment...?

[4newton]

You said:
[quote]What is the reference frame (not its name, give me a description) and what are you doing with respect to that reference frame?
I did not want to insult you or your education but if you require an education here it is.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In physics, an inertial frame of reference, or inertial frame for short, is a frame of reference in which the observers move without the influence of any accelerating or decelerating force. The term "inertia" refers to a direction through spacetime, and "frame" defines an area wherin the inertia is functionally the same for the relevant observers.
The inertial frame is a space-time coordinate system that neither rotates nor accelerates. Different inertial reference frames may have different origins at any given moment in time, and their respective origins may be moving at constant speed and direction relative to each other. A non-inertial frame of reference is a coordinate system which is accelerating. The transformation from one inertial frame of reference to another is done using Lorentz transformations, or, at speeds considerably below the speed of light, Galilean transformations.
As I stated before.

Consider
If you start from your current reference frame ( fz ) and send a clock (A) away at a relativistic speed in all different directions. Each time, clock (A) always comes back with less time. Less time indicating that clock (A) ran slower.

I left out the term inertial to allow for a coordinate system that may not be moving.
The object of the experiment, that you don’t seem to get, is can you have a zero reference frame in which the relations of SR still apply. For example, can you determine the difference of the rate of a clock from a rest frame to a moving frame? Or with your inability to understand concepts and nit pick terms. Can you apply the relations of SR to any coordinate system? If SR is unable to be used when considering the possibility of any absolutes in the universe then there is a limitation on SR.

Clocks in GPS satellites do not show the behavior you predict.

I think to help with you education you should look at:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

If you go to the site above you will find no support for your position.

If you have any source of SR experimental results that disprove my two experiments I would be very happy to learn of them.

If clocks run at different rates when moving at different velocities as stated in SR
www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
Then some clocks moving at a slower velocity when brought back to a clock moving at a higher velocity will indicate more elapsed time indicating it had been running faster.

Slower relative to what? Slower relative to your hypothetical universal reference frame? Once more: experimentation has shown that this frame does not exist.

Again you leave me no choice except educate you and explain to you the terms of a formula.
The rate of a clock as given in Einstein’s formula is stated with respect to C, C is the speed of light, and V, V is the velocity of the clock in a spatial direction. It stated nothing more and nothing less. If it will help your understanding then you name, describe, find a reference frame, or what ever else you must do to understand the concept.

What experiments?

And have you heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment...?
What does that have to do with the above?

[russ_watters]

I did not want to insult you or your education but if you require an education here it is. I didn't ask for a definition of a reference frame, I asked for a description of the specific reference frame you were working with. If someone asks you what your car looks like, do you say it has 4 wheels and an engine?

In your thought experiment, what is your velocity with respect to yourself?

Have you heard of the train tool for explaining reference frames? There are two guys - one sitting on a train moving at 10ft/sec (with respect to the platform), one standing on the platform. There is a woman walking forward on the train at 1ft/sec with respect to the train.

-With respect to the man on the train, the woman is moving at 1ft/sec.
-With respect to the man on the platform, the woman is moving at 11ft/sec.
-With respect to herself, she is stationary.

3 different reference frames from which to measure her speed, therefore 3 different speeds. All 3 are equally valid and therefore all 3 can be used to make accurate predictions about things like how long it will take for her to get to the end of the train. And yet none of them take into account the rotation of the earth (but it would still work if you choose to use it). All 3 can also be used to predict the time dilation of a clock she carries with her for the purpose of synchronizing her clock with the clocks the two guys are carrying. You are saying that all 3 would give different predictions about her time dilation and that only one can be right. The object of the experiment, that you don’t seem to get, is can you have a zero reference frame in which the relations of SR still apply. You can keep repeating it(and I do understand what you are saying - its just that what you are saying is wrong), I'll keep telling you its wrong on both levels - no, its not consistent with SR, and no, it does not reflect reality. Again, the 1st postulate of SR is that all reference frames are equally valid. If all frames are equally valid, how can one be more valid than the rest? Can you apply the relations of SR to any coordinate system? Yes. Of course. That (again) is the 1st postulate. If SR is unable to be used when considering the possibility of any absolutes in the universe then there is a limitation on SR. Well of course SR has limitations: it is constrained by the requirement that it match observations. I think to help with you education you should look at:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolo...-relativity.asp

If you go to the site above you will find no support for your position.

If you have any source of SR experimental results that disprove my two experiments I would be very happy to learn of them. That's a great link. I've read it before. You clearly do not understand it, but the gist of it is that GPS satellites perform exactly as SR/GR predict. I'm starting to doubt that you're serious here: you alternately argue that your idea fits SR and that SR is wrong. To argue against my assertion that SR fits observations, you post a link that says SR fits observations. Its bizarre. Come right out and say it: do you think SR fits observations or not?
Then some clocks moving at a slower velocity when brought back to a clock moving at a higher velocity will indicate more elapsed time indicating it had been running faster. So, for example, a clock orbiting the earth perpendicular to earth's orbit around the sun will move faster (on average) than one orbiting parallel to earth's orbit and as a result its clock will tick slower. Is that would you would predict? Again you leave me no choice except educate you and explain to you the terms of a formula.
The rate of a clock as given in Einstein’s formula is stated with respect to C, C is the speed of light, and V, V is the velocity of the clock in a spatial direction. It stated nothing more and nothing less. If it will help your understanding then you name, describe, find a reference frame, or what ever else you must do to understand the concept. You know Einstein didn't come up with that equation, right? Its called a Lorentz tranformation. If the equation was everything, we wouldn't need Einstein - we'd be using "Lorentzian Relativity" today (that is, btw, essentially what you are advocating). The part about reference frames, which you apparently don't think is relevant, is Einstein's entire contribution to the theory. If you don't use it, you're not using the equation as Einstein intended, you are using it as Lorentz intended.

SR says that all reference frames are equally valid, ie no one frame is "better" than the rest and the laws of the universe work the same for all of them. So which is it: do you want to use SR or not?

And again, its funny that you would say reference frames don't matter - in your attempt to show something about reference frames. Statements like that make me think you're kidding about all of this.What does that (M&M experiment) have to do with the above? The Michelson Morlely experiment was an attempt to find the universal reference frame. Since your thought experiment is an attempt to find the universal reference frame, I figured it might be relevant.

Have you heard of muon decay experiments? Muons decay at a fast and predictible rate. When fired from a particle accelerator, time dilation slows their decay rate. Would you predict that a muon fired in the same direction of the earth's motion would decay faster, slower, or at the same rate as one fired in the opposite direction of the earth's motion.

Also, the earth's motion is about 1000 mph. If a particle is fired at C-500mph (relative to the ground), but in the direction of earth's rotation, does that mean it is travleling faster than C?

If the speed of objects has an absolute relative to some universal reference frame, does light as well? Ie, since we measure the speed of objects to be different in different frames, but there is one "true" speed, does the same apply to light?

[russ_watters]

HERE (http://caos.creol.ucf.edu/seminars/Measurement,%20Relativity,%20Einstein%20and%20Ever ything%20Else.ppt) is a nice little Power Point presentation. It may be educational. It states the 1st postulate in a slightly different way than I do, which better addresses your point. But go through all the slides (there are only 20) - it covers just about everything we've talked about (its so close to the discussion in the thread its a little scary).

[russ_watters]

I just realized I missed something before that should have been rather obvious. Embarassing (and annoying), but its important:

First off, I'm not great with the particle physics, so I think I had a couple of experiments confused. THIS (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae611.cfm) is pion decay: Pion experiments at CERN have measured time dilation effects. Pions are produced in high energy collisions of nucleons. They are unstable and decay into a muon and a neutrino.

Not taking into account time dilation pions would travel about 7.6 meters before decaying.

Taking into account time dilation a pion of energy 4.5 GeV would travel about 250 meters before decaying.

CERN has measured a mean distance of 250 meters before the pions decay. Now, according to your hypothesis, how long it takes to decay depends on the "true" speed of the pion relative to the universal reference frame. That distance would vary if the pion was shot in different directions, just like your clocks' time dilation varies. That means that in order to make a prediction of 250 meters, CERN first had to know the "true" speed with respect to the universal reference frame. So where did they get that prediction from unless they already know about the universal reference frame?

In your experiment with the clocks, you don't make a specific prediction about the time dilation rate. Ie, you couln't predict the exact time dilation of any of those clocks because you don't know the "true" speed with respect to the universal reference frame.

To put a finer point on it, without knowing your true speed with respect to the universal reference frame, you can't predict time dilation. How then can your link say this: Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Since we haven't found the universal reference frame from which to make that prediction, how can they say such a thing?

[RedDye5]

so... the frame we're in is always the fastest frame temporal-wise? that's the conclusion i'm reaching if any clock sent from that frame will return with slower time.

but we're also the slowest frame spatial-wise... weird

[4newton]

[quote=russ_watters]

Let us start at this place and see if we can work together. I am sorry for any remark that I have made that was personal. I will try to restrain myself in the future.

I think at this point that it would be useful to start new with the basics.
You read the post on the GPS system. I think you agree it works. Do you also agree, disregarding gravity, that if you take a clock, as they did in the GPS system, from earth surface to the orbital distance of the GPS that your clock will slow down? Like wise if you take a clock from the GPS orbit to the earth surface it will speed up?

[4newton]

[quote=RedDye5]

A frame is an idea that is used to consider all things collectively that share a common condition. In Special Relativity the common condition is movement in the spatial dimension, or velocity. Although all things under consideration may consist of objects it is not restricted to objects. Some of the objects under consideration are clocks and the length of a rigid object. By invention, not based on any direct observation, Einstein proposed a relationship between velocity and the objects that may be moving at the same rate. Most important however, are his relationships between frames moving at different velocities. A collection of objects moving in a spatial direction may be called an inertial reference frame. The discussion we are trying to have here: Is SR the limit of reality and requires all things to exist only in relations to other things in the universe or is SR just a statement of relationships of some things in an absolute universe.

The relationship you call weird is no different then you getting in a car and finding that the more you push the gas pedal your car will go faster or the other way around if you push the brake the car will slow down.

[russ_watters]

so... the frame we're in is always the fastest frame temporal-wise? that's the conclusion i'm reaching if any clock sent from that frame will return with slower time.

but we're also the slowest frame spatial-wise... Not quite - in 4newton's thought experiment, you're always stationary. But if you're accelerating, then you can't really consider yourself stationary. You've left the frame you started in. In that case, your clock will be slower than the clock in that frame.weird It is weird. Someone once said about quantum mechanics that if you think it makes sense, you don't understand it. But its good that you're thinking about it with an open mind even though it doesn't make sense.

[russ_watters]

You read the post on the GPS system. I think you agree it works. Do you also agree, disregarding gravity, that if you take a clock, as they did in the GPS system, from earth surface to the orbital distance of the GPS that your clock will slow down? Like wise if you take a clock from the GPS orbit to the earth surface it will speed up? GPS satellites have their clock rates calibrated prior to launch using Einstein's prediction so that once in orbit they stay in sync with ground-based clocks. Absolutely. The question is how much.By invention, not based on any direct observation, Einstein proposed a relationship between velocity and the objects that may be moving at the same rate. The second part doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but the first is factually inaccurate: Einstein proposed SR because of a known difficulty in reconciling the observation that C is constant with Newtonian physics. GR came about because of inaccuracies in Newtonian predictions about the orbits of planets.

[4newton]

[quote=russ_watters]Absolutely. The question is how much.]

I think we have a starting point.
The main point is that we now agree that the rate of clocks is bi-directional. If a clock ( L ) that has been moving with a velocity in a spatial dimension and has a spatial velocity that is less than clock ( M ) and clock ( H ) and clock ( M ) has been moving at a velocity that is less than clock ( H ) then, clock ( H ) will run the slowest and clock ( L ) will run the fastest and by agreement, clock ( M ) is in the exact middle and has a rate to that effect.
If we bring all three clocks together, after a set time period, without changing the conditions of clock ( M ) then, clock ( L ) will have accumulated the most time and clock ( H ) will have accumulated the least time.

Do we still agree?

[4newton]

By invention, not based on any direct observation, Einstein proposed a relationship between velocity and the objects that may be moving at the same rate.

The second part doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but the first is factually inaccurate: Einstein proposed SR because of a known difficulty in reconciling the observation that C is constant with Newtonian physics. GR came about because of inaccuracies in Newtonian predictions about the orbits of planets.

If you will check
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolo...-relativity.asp
this is Einstein’s paper. You will see the relationship of rigid objects and clocks when moving at a velocity in a spatial dimension.

Direct measurement is the key word. At that time no one had measured the change of clocks or rigid objects with velocity.
I think everyone should spend a little time looking at the method used by Einstein. It is not the scientific method and was disapproved of at the time, in fact it is still disapproved of today.

[mattcom]

what? a clock is something that measures time, like anything else, even the clock work of a solar system. but that solar system IS moving very fast through space, around the center of the galaxy. and how fast is that galaxy moving? are we all moving through space at an amazing speed? how does that effect the rate of clocks? or the rate of a solar system clock? sorry, i may be on a differnt level of understanding than you scientists. what exactly are u talkin bout?

[n0n]

what is all this frame talk? frame this frame that, whatever I havent had time to read the rest of the posts just the last few, so if this has been said before sorry. I think time is fluid, like water & air going from hot to cold

that the fluid(time) uses a scale like absolute 0 temp. only absolute 0 temp. would be the speed of light or 299792458 meter/sec. and any range above absolute 0 temp. would be effected by time much like absolute 0 temp. is effected by heat. For time is infinite distance and is why Einstine declared Space and Time to be the same thing. Thier for time shouldnt be based on frame but on a relitiveness to light.

unit-time to travel (on 2D of Distance)@ speed=(distance/(speed/C))/Distance
C = 299792458 m/s

this then shows the ability to observe seperate time continuums. I am on a rocket going the speed of light, it will take 1 time unit for me to get any distance, but say I were traveling 5,000,000,000meters . you would see 16.6782047seconds (or depending on the distance any amount of time).
Based on our rotation around the earth(1609344m/s) and sun(107826048m/s), and say my rocket were in space starting at (0m/s), you would only feel 2.7394470 unit-time. within my 1. note: if the distance were the same as the speed of light but the speed were different the classic t = d/s would work. so the slower you go over a larger area means more unit-time's. but at c always just 1 unit-time, even if its 1000million m away or even greater.

this is usefull in gyro's, for they can tell any movement changes and time relative to the objects initial starting point and speed. the accuracy of the clock would then be dependent on the accuracy of the labled initinal starting point and speed. a chip could calculate the differance and reset itsslef to keep perfect time without a hitch. for as long as the gyro's would keep going

some say that light goes can go faster then the speed of light, gravity waves move at the speed of light too so thierfor gravitational speed increase in relation to light is not increasive only decreasive.

[4newton]

what? a clock is something that measures time, like anything else, even the clock work of a solar system. but that solar system IS moving very fast through space, around the center of the galaxy. and how fast is that galaxy moving? are we all moving through space at an amazing speed? how does that effect the rate of clocks? or the rate of a solar system clock? sorry, i may be on a differnt level of understanding than you scientists. what exactly are u talkin bout?

In the spatial dimension you are only able to move in one direction and at only one speed at a time. Your speed and direction are the vector sum of all the forces that act on an object, you, in this case, are the object. Your current direction and rate are as you state. The result of all the actions you list and more. If however you move out into space and you pick a direction and apply a force that will cancel all of the motion you will come to a point of rest or steady state.

Clocks tick at a rate that is dependent on how fast they are moving. Clocks that move faster tick slower and as clocks move in the spatial dimension at a rate that approaches the speed of light the tick of the clock approaches zero.

The question is what is the maximum rate that a clock can tick? In theory this would be when your motion in space is zero. You would then be at a point of zero motion, or zero velocity. That point then would be the zero reference frame for clocks. No clock can run faster because you can not go slower then zero velocity. The experiment that I proposed is to find the point of zero velocity.

[Prometheus]

If however you move out into space and you pick a direction and apply a force that will cancel all of the motion you will come to a point of rest or steady state.

Are you suggesting that it is possible to come to a point of rest with respect to the entire universe?

The question is what is the maximum rate that a clock can tick? In theory this would be when your motion in space is zero. You would then be at a point of zero motion, or zero velocity. That point then would be the zero reference frame for clocks. No clock can run faster because you can not go slower then zero velocity. The experiment that I proposed is to find the point of zero velocity.

Zero velocity is absolutely meaningless, unless you are of the opinion that all non-accelerating velocities are at zero velocity, in which case it is relatively meaningless (pun intended).

I do not understand how you can consider it possible for an object to be at complete rest with respect the the entire universe, which will never be at rest with respect to the object. Perhaps you might elucidate this.

[n0n]

I think that this has been said before but, thier is no such thing as no movement in space. for one, time, speed, and distance are all referances to things on earth. and in space only inirtia exists so any direction at any speed could still be considered not moving at all. time is erronious in that aspect but using constants and relitive referance points, we can figure it out. in a designated distance if you dont speed then time= inf->. but if you do speed then its all relitive. so 1 Distance = infinite time (0 movement in relation to bass object), infinite distance = 1 time (speed of light).

[russ_watters]

I think we have a starting point.
The main point is that we now agree that the rate of clocks is bi-directional. If a clock ( L ) that has been moving with a velocity in a spatial dimension and has a spatial velocity that is less than clock ( M ) and clock ( H ) and clock ( M ) has been moving at a velocity that is less than clock ( H ) then, clock ( H ) will run the slowest and clock ( L ) will run the fastest and by agreement, clock ( M ) is in the exact middle and has a rate to that effect.
If we bring all three clocks together, after a set time period, without changing the conditions of clock ( M ) then, clock ( L ) will have accumulated the most time and clock ( H ) will have accumulated the least time.

Do we still agree? Yep. Still there. Direct measurement is the key word. At that time no one had measured the change of clocks or rigid objects with velocity. Quite right. Time dilation was predicted mathematically based on the observation that the speed of light is constant. But are you saying that he shouldn't have suggested it because it hadn't yet been observed? That isn't now, nor ever has been the way science works. Ptolmey's epicycles were such a mathematical model. They matched the observations of known motions because they were designed to - but they had no real predictive value (ie they could only tell you what you already knew about the motion of the planets). Making predictions isn't just a requirement of the scientific method, its the whole reason science exists.

[russ_watters]

what? a clock is something that measures time, like anything else, even the clock work of a solar system. but that solar system IS moving very fast through space, around the center of the galaxy. and how fast is that galaxy moving? are we all moving through space at an amazing speed? how does that effect the rate of clocks? or the rate of a solar system clock? sorry, i may be on a differnt level of understanding than you scientists. what exactly are u talkin bout? I don't know how new this idea is to you, mattcom, so this may come as a shock: the rate of the passage of time is not constant. It varies with speed and gravity. what is all this frame talk? frame this frame that, whatever I havent had time to read the rest of the posts just the last few, so if this has been said before sorry. All physical measurments require a well-defined frame of reference for them to have any meaning. Voltage is measured with respect to a ground, temperature on a scale tied to the behavior of water. Speed is measured with respect to an arbitrary stationary observer.

It may be that this seems so basic to you that you've never even thought about it. If so, fine - its been a part of science since the very beginning, but still (clearly) some people have issues with the concept. Are you suggesting that it is possible to come to a point of rest with respect to the entire universe? Yes, that is what is being incorrectly suggested.

[brodix]

Well, Dr. Dick should be back soon. Are we discussing measuring time, or what is time?

As my point seems to have been lost in the shuffle, I may as well repeat it;

All physical measurments require a well-defined frame of reference for them to have any meaning. Voltage is measured with respect to a ground, temperature on a scale tied to the behavior of water. Speed is measured with respect to an arbitrary stationary observer.

It may be that this seems so basic to you that you've never even thought about it. If so, fine - its been a part of science since the very beginning, but still (clearly) some people have issues with the concept.

That frame of reference is relative and since time is a measure of motion, it is effectively going in the opposite direction. While the unit of time goes from beginning to end, the process(the frame of reference) is going on to the next unit, toward beginnings, leaving ends.

[4newton]

It has been agreed that:
If a clock moves from reference frame ( H ) to reference frame ( M ) the clock will have an increase in rate, the clock will tick faster. Like wise a clock that moves from ( M ) to ( L ) will again increase in rate.
Therefore if the rate of a clock is relative only from frame to frame then the process may continue without limit and the clock rate will increase with out limit. You have but two choices. A point where velocity may be absolute zero or time rate without limits.
This of course also applies to meter rods. Your meter rod would increase to infinity.
Do we still agree?

[4newton]

All physical measurements require a well-defined frame of reference for them to have any meaning. Voltage is measured with respect to a ground.

this is correct. Your voltage may decrease until it reaches zero the same as you reference. The two points then have the same number of electrons or no electrons. Both are valid for the measurement.
Are you suggesting that every place in the universe must have electrons?

[russ_watters]

It has been agreed that:
If a clock moves from reference frame ( H ) to reference frame ( M ) the clock will have an increase in rate, the clock will tick faster. Like wise a clock that moves from ( M ) to ( L ) will again increase in rate. You said nothing in your last post about a clock moving into a different reference frame. All you had were 3 clocks in 3 frames moving at 3 speeds. But if you accelerate H's clock to M's speed, its tick rate will slow down relative to a stationary observer. Therefore if the rate of a clock is relative only from frame to frame then the process may continue without limit and the clock rate will increase with out limit. Except for the caveat that no clock can stop due to time dilation because no clock can go the speed of light, there is no limit to how different the readings of two identical clocks can be. You have but two choices. A point where velocity may be absolute zero or time rate without limits. Since nowhere in any of this has the word "absoute" appeared, it doesn't belong there either. In fact, it directly contradicts everything we were just agreeing on: if everything is relative (except C), then how can anything be absolute?

Maybe I should have forced you to specify after you first brought up the speeds of M, L, and H: speed relative to what? A stationary observer is, of course, the answer, but thats still not good enough: is that an absolutely or relatively stationary observer? If you say absolutely, then you are assuming that speed is absolute, not demonstrating it.

In any case, if you jump into a space ship and accelerate to just under the speed of light, you will return to earth to find an almost infinite amount of time passed on earth: Your clock was going almost infinitely slower than an identical clock on earth and the clock on earth was going almost infinitely faster than yours. That's a time rate without limits. This of course also applies to meter rods. Your meter rod would increase to infinity. In actuality, if you are measuring its length with a clock and a speedometer, it can either increase to infinity or decrease to zero. this is correct. Your voltage may decrease until it reaches zero the same as you reference. The two points then have the same number of electrons or no electrons. Both are valid for the measurement.
Are you suggesting that every place in the universe must have electrons? This may have been a bad example because there can be an absolute ground (and an absolute zero temperature, for that matter). The point was that in a circuit, voltage is measured between any two points in the circuit.

Sorry, but this is so self-evident for low-speed applications that I'm having trouble giving a good analogy. I use them just because it seems like you are overcomplicating this and confusing yourself. How about this: are you on board with the idea that two people can play ping-pong on a moving train as long as the train never accelerates?

Also, I'm a little disturbed by how you ignored the presentation I posted. Did you read it? If so, you saw how specifically it refuted your position, right? How do you reconcile that? The way I see it, that gives you a pretty clear choice: you can choose to accept that your position is wrong or you can choose to accept that your position is right and the entire physics community is wrong. Doesn't seem like a difficult choice to me (but it does require admitting you're wrong - which is difficult for many people).

[4newton]

But if you accelerate H's clock to M's speed, its tick rate will slow down relative to a stationary observer.
Again lets cover one point at a time.

First. In my example H is moving at a velocity faster than M and the tick rate should be faster.
Second. Are you saying that acceleration has something to do with the clock rate?

[Chronos]

There is a simple way to resolve this issue. Propose an experiment that results in observations that do not agree with GR. As Einstein said, 'it only takes one to prove me wrong'.

[Chronos]

Footnote: The reason some of us are so 'dogmatic' about GR, is because it has passed, with flying colors, every test devised to prove it wrong. Nobody said it was perfect, just that is more so than any alternative explanation offered to date. Perhaps someday we will scoff Einstein in the same way we scoff at Newton. But, today is not the day.

[brodix]

Chronos,
If space is ultimately flat, wouldn't that imply an absolute from which expansion and gravitational collapse are just fluctuations?

[DrChinese]

Footnote: The reason some of us are so 'dogmatic' about GR, is because it has passed, with flying colors, every test devised to prove it wrong. Nobody said it was perfect, just that is more so than any alternative explanation offered to date. Perhaps someday we will scoff Einstein in the same way we scoff at Newton. But, today is not the day.

Who is scoffing at Newton? Einstein's improvements to theory do not lessen Newton's role in any way. Theory is not reality. Theory is a useful model of some realm of reality. So hooray for Newton, and Einstein, and anyone who can improve on GR!

[russ_watters]

First. In my example H is moving at a velocity faster than M and the tick rate should be faster. If H is moving faster, its tick rate is slower. Second. Are you saying that acceleration has something to do with the the clock rate? Absolutely: acceleration is how you start moving.

Again, this is experimental fact: that's what happens to GPS satellites when you put them in orbit. And the the clock rate doesn't depend on the orbital inclination - as it should if what you propose is true.

What you have here is a convoluted "Twins Paradox." Are you familiar with that? The way you solve the paradox is through SR and accelerating one clock to meet the other in the other's frame.

Again, did you read the presentation I linked?

[russ_watters]

Who is scoffing at Newton? Einstein's improvements to theory do not lessen Newton's role in any way. Theory is not reality. Theory is a useful model of some realm of reality. So hooray for Newton, and Einstein, and anyone who can improve on GR! Indeed - in many ways Newton did more than Einstein. No math to describe your theory? No problem - invent a new branch of math!

[brodix]

I've made two very basic points in this discussion. One, that as a measure of specific motion, time effectively travels in both directions, with the frame of reference moving opposite the specific.
Two, that not only is space an absolute, but is the basis of the abstraction known as absolute.
I am quite sure that had any potential flaws in this logic occurred to anyone, they would have expressed it.
I realize that most people naturally tend to ignore things which do not fit their assumptions, but this is one of the least curious groups I've ever butted into.
No, I am not an expert in math and science, just a long time observer, but sometimes the perspective of a little distance can be useful. Beliefs should always be subject to scepticism, or the conversation becomes irrelevant.
I also pointed out that geometry never got around to incorporating the zero and from this arises the presumption that space is a function of topology, rather then the basis of it. Also, points, lines and planes cannot have a zero dimension, only less than Planck scale, because any multiple of zero is zero.
Some of this is mine. Some of it is others. Open source logic.

[Chronos]

At risk of sounding repetitive, there are no 'absolutes'. There is no absolute space, time, mass, or energy. If you truly think about it, this is obvious and indisputable. GR is correct, both physically and metaphysically. The speed of light is the closest thing to a reliable reference standard known. Find one with more predictive power and you will make history.

[russ_watters]

At risk of sounding repetitive, there are no 'absolutes'. Indeed, we've said it so many times, I'm starting to wonder how they keep missing it.

[JoeWade]

even if you found an absolute, whatever we witness in OUR frame is RELATIVE to that absolute...

[brodix]

Chronos,

You are not addressing my specific point. If all curvature balances out and space is ultimately flat, would this suggest an ultimate state of equilibrium, with expansion and contraction as fluctuations from the mean? While it cannot be reached, absolute zero is a legitimate point of reference with regards to temperature. If you have eliminated all such motion, there is no time, so this state doesn't therefore have any ability to fluctuate and so cannot be said to curve, so what remains, other than empty space? As I've pointed out, geometry has never considered the implications of zero, otherwise it wouldn't attempt to say points, lines and planes have a zero dimension. So what would zero in geometry be? It isn't a point. Empty space is the only logical answer that I can see.
So I've given three reasons why space is the essence of absolute. All methods of determining space as relative involve the proposition that it is a function of measuring properties relative to it, yet these properties must exist in an equilibrium; Matter/anti-matter. Expansion and contraction. As I've pointed out with time, given that it is a measure of relative motion, then the frame of reference is necessarily in motion as well. So what is the state from which these properties all fluctuate?
I have reached these suppositions out of a desire to make sense of the reality I find myself in. If I am in fact wrong, I would certainly like to find it out, but given the extent to which people tend to take assumptions as fact and build religions around them, a blanket assertion does not qualify are a logical rebuttal.

[Chronos]

Chronos,

You are not addressing my specific point. If all curvature balances out and space is ultimately flat, would this suggest an ultimate state of equilibrium, with expansion and contraction as fluctuations from the mean?

What specific point are you talking about?

While it cannot be reached, absolute zero is a legitimate point of reference with regards to temperature. If you have eliminated all such motion, there is no time, so this state doesn't therefore have any ability to fluctuate and so cannot be said to curve, so what remains, other than empty space?

Absolute zero cannot be reached. You answered your own question.

As I've pointed out, geometry has never considered the implications of zero, otherwise it wouldn't attempt to say points, lines and planes have a zero dimension. So what would zero in geometry be? It isn't a point. Empty space is the only logical answer that I can see.

Geometry is a coordinate system. Zero in geometry is the center of the coordinate system [x,y,z = 0], How hard is that to figure out?

So I've given three reasons why space is the essence of absolute. All methods of determining space as relative involve the proposition that it is a function of measuring properties relative to it, yet these properties must exist in an equilibrium; Matter/anti-matter. Expansion and contraction. As I've pointed out with time, given that it is a measure of relative motion, then the frame of reference is necessarily in motion as well. So what is the state from which these properties all fluctuate??

You have given three reasons that don't make sense. Your conclusions, therefore, are suspect.


I have reached these suppositions out of a desire to make sense of the reality I find myself in. If I am in fact wrong, I would certainly like to find it out, but given the extent to which people tend to take assumptions as fact and build religions around them, a blanket assertion does not qualify are a logical rebuttal.

Not religion and no one is making blanket assertions, so far as I can see. As scientists, we routinely exclude assertions that are not affirmed by observation

[russ_watters]

I have reached these suppositions out of a desire to make sense of the reality I find myself in. If I am in fact wrong, I would certainly like to find it out, but given the extent to which people tend to take assumptions as fact and build religions around them, a blanket assertion does not qualify are a logical rebuttal. You misunderstand the nature of your conundrum: YOU are the one making the assumption that needs to be substantiated here, not us. Since the laws of the universe work fine without assuming an absolute reference frame, it is unreasonable to assume one exists.

[brodix]

Chronos,

What specific point are you talking about?

If all curvature balances out and space is ultimately flat, would this suggest an ultimate state of equilibrium, with expansion and contraction as fluctuations from the mean?

Absolute zero cannot be reached. You answered your own question.

Maybe you could define your understanding of "absolute"

Geometry is a coordinate system. Zero in geometry is the center of the coordinate system [x,y,z = 0], How hard is that to figure out?

The center of the coordinate system is a point and a point is one. AS in two points define a line, three, not on the same line, define a plane(and a circle).
Consider; Three dimensions define volume, but space doesn't have a particular coordinate system, so any number of random coordinate systems can be used to define the same space. As all points are potentially the center of the universe, order requires a particular point of reference, so any particular coordinate system is a unit, a frame of reference. So your point that x,y,z=0 is only relevant if said coordinate system doesn't exist. As you quoted, "Absolute zero cannot be reached." If there are any subjective points on that coordinate system, then x,y,z, is simply the initial point of reference and does exist and so cannot be an absolute.

So what is zero in geometry, other then the empty space?

You have given three reasons that don't make sense. Your conclusions, therefore, are suspect.

As I've had similar conversations on various forums, with a wide range of comprehension, I do know that these ideas possess some degree of sense. I suppose I'm asking for too much here.

russ,

You misunderstand the nature of your conundrum: YOU are the one making the assumption that needs to be substantiated here, not us. Since the laws of the universe work fine without assuming an absolute reference frame, it is unreasonable to assume one exists.

Of course! A universe in which ninety-six percent is invisible to everything but the math. Thank your lucky stars you're not accountants, or the IRS would be all over you.

The only alternative to Big Bang Theory that I recall was tired light. This doesn't even make sense to begin with. If light is encountering friction, proceeding waves/photons would encounter more then succeeding ones, so the wave length would be shortened. What about energized light; That decreasing amplitude is transferred to expanded frequency, like cracking a whip?
As gravity causes space to collapse and as gravitational processes are shedding temendous amounts of radiation, wouldn't this radiation cause space to expand? As in;

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2404626

If space does expand, but the universe, already being infinite, doesn't, wouldn't this result in more pressure on existing gravitational systems, thus causing the effect currently assigned dark matter?
As light from distant sources is clearly magnified by the lensing effect of intervening galaxies, wouldn't this result in a blueshift effect that would reduce the overall redshift and that given the distribution of galaxies, the light of distant sources is going to pass through proportionally more residual gravity fields than closer sources, it would seem that the result would be that the closer sources have a greater average redshift, thus creating the immpression that the rate of expansion is increasing.... I think I've probably hit a few mental roadblocks, so I'd leave it at that...

regards,

brodix

[russ_watters]

Of course! A universe in which ninety-six percent is invisible to everything but the math. Thank your lucky stars you're not accountants, or the IRS would be all over you. Are you talking about dark matter? That has nothing at all to do with this thread. The only alternative to Big Bang Theory that I recall was tired light. This also has nothing to do with this thread....nor does the rest of your post.

The nonexistence of a universal reference frame is the inevitable conclusion of a boatload of experiments - not the least of which was the Michelson-Morley experiment.

[brodix]

Russ,

The nonexistence of a universal reference frame is the inevitable conclusion of a boatload of experiments - not the least of which was the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Yes. There is no universal reference frame. Order is a function of perspective, which is relative. Every point is effectively the center of the universe, the x,y,z. So space is effectively infinitely dimensional. When we try to order it, we assign it a specific reference frame. But the map isn't the territory.
As I've pointed out; In that there are effectively two directions of time within the context of what exists, ie. is present, the past is what is ordered and the future is the random energy that is necessary for order to continue. The order/definition that is the past motivates the energy that ensures the future, while the energy of the future motivates the order of the past. (This is essentially complexity theory, with the present as the complex phase transition between order and chaos. Top down order of the set. Bottom up growth of the process.)
Back to space; The reference frame is order. As such it is a closed system and subject to entropy, ie. in and of itself, it loses energy. Therefore it must have an input of raw energy to continue. This energy is necessarily chaotic. (As I'm sure this description probably seems to you.)
So, yes, there is no universal frame of reference, but the absolute isn't a frame of reference, it is the neutral state, around which matter collapses and energy expands.
Space.

See if you can dig down just a little on this. The see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil routine gets boring.

[Doctordick]

Well, I am back. I quickly read through the thread. It seems to contain a lot of posts having little to do with my original statement. I find a lot of posts concerned with the definition of time, but no post that made any serious attempt to define what the poster meant by the term. A couple gave a rather superficial definition: those generally contained the term "rate" which clearly requires a definition of time and thus cannot be used in a serious definition of time.

I found (and of course this decision is made with limited knowledge) only two posters with seemingly rational positions and am very sorry to find them arguing with one another. That would be 4newton and russ_waters. Russ seems to have a better education but 4newton seems to be more ready to think for himself. Russ, I think you should be more tolerant of his mistaken perceptions and seriously consider your responses to him.

Russ, I am afraid you have been a little sloppy in your criticisms (or corrections) of 4newton's comments. Yes, his interpretations are a bit askew of the standard but he is not as far from understanding as the others on this thread. Plus that, he has an open mind to issues you deem settled and beyond question.

First I would like to comment on your rather cavil explanation of the relationship between special and general relativity.
Einstein proposed SR because of a known difficulty in reconciling the observation that C is constant with Newtonian physics. GR came about because of inaccuracies in Newtonian predictions about the orbits of planets.The theory of relativity existed before Einstein; however, it was not called a theory because everyone thought it was correct. As far as I know, it was first proposed by Galileo but the consequences were thoroughly implemented by Newton. The issue is the fact that all of physics must be independent of your personal frame of reference. From Newton's perspective, Euclidian geometry was the only rational geometry to use. As a direct consequence, the conversion from one frame of reference to another (presuming the x axis is parallel to the velocity vector) was accomplished via t'=t, x'=x+vt, y'=y and z'=z: where the origins of the two were in the same place when t=0.

It is, in fact, the presumption of most that Newton's assumption was absolutely correct which leads to the problems most have with modern analysis of relativity. But let us leave that issue for the moment. What is important here is that Newton's relativity is entirely general and much useful physics flows from that fact. Newton defined an "inertial frame" as the frame where \vec{F}=m\vec{a} is a valid expression. Of great importance is the fact that accelerated reference frames (frames which are not "inertial") are as useful as inertial frame so long as the consequences of that acceleration are taken into account.

In particular, rotation leads to effects which are very significant. Centrifugal and coriolis forces are direct consequences of using rotating coordinate systems. The major problem with "special" relativity is the fact that it only provides the relationship between reference frames in the total absence of acceleration. That is, it fact, why it is called "special" relativity!

A complete theory must be entirely "general". That is why a "theory of general relativity" was required! Without a "general" theory, we are in as much trouble as we were without the "special" theory. The fact that gravitation could be explained as a consequence of "general" relativity was more of an overwhelming support of Einstein's theory than a necessity of it.
You misunderstand the nature of your conundrum: YOU are the one making the assumption that needs to be substantiated here, not us. Since the laws of the universe work fine without assuming an absolute reference frame, it is unreasonable to assume one exists.With regard to this issue, you are being a little provincial to say the least. It would be better if you were to say," Since most of the laws of the universe work fine without assuming an absolute reference frame, it is unreasonable to assume one is required to explain most phenomena. With regard to your "generalization", I would like to bring to your attention the following:

In 1989 the (COsmic Background Explorer) mission was launched. One of its missions was to measure the temperature of the universe accurately. COBE found that the temperature of the universe is 2.725 K. This temperature agrees remarkably well with that predicted by the Big Bang theory.

But COBE scientists didn't stop there. They noticed that the universe looked a little cooler in one direction, and a little warmer in the other direction. This is called the dipole variation and is caused by the Doppler effect of our solar system's motion relative to the cosmic background radiation, enabling the COBE scientists to measure the speed of the solar system: 371 km/sec.

Check out http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/

Thus it seems that a valid explanation of the Universe does indeed include a natural unique coordinate system. What I would say is that "special relativity" (the idea that ignorance of distant events is not detrimental to our study of physics) is a very valuable tool for setting up constraints on what is to be expected but is certainly not a "proof" that all physics must be frame independent. In fact we have direct evidence (given above) that all physics is not frame independent.

Have fun -- Dick

[Chronos]

Well, I am back. I quickly read through the thread. It seems to contain a lot of posts having little to do with my original statement. I find a lot of posts concerned with the definition of time, but no post that made any serious attempt to define what the poster meant by the term. A couple gave a rather superficial definition: those generally contained the term "rate" which clearly requires a definition of time and thus cannot be used in a serious definition of time.

How do you define 'rate'? All definitions I am aware of include the variable 'time'. Please explain how a 'serious discussion of time' excludes time.

I found (and of course this decision is made with limited knowledge) only two posters with seemingly rational positions and am very sorry to find them arguing with one another. That would be 4newton and russ_waters. Russ seems to have a better education but 4newton seems to be more ready to think for himself. Russ, I think you should be more tolerant of his mistaken perceptions and seriously consider your responses to him. He did.

Russ, I am afraid you have been a little sloppy in your criticisms (or corrections) of 4newton's comments. Yes, his interpretations are a bit askew of the standard but he is not as far from understanding as the others on this thread. Plus that, he has an open mind to issues you deem settled and beyond question.Because 4newton was wrong. The issue is settled until new evidence is introduced to refute it. The 'best proven' explanation must be preferred over the 'best unproven' explanation.

First I would like to comment on your rather cavil explanation of the relationship between special and general relativity.
The theory of relativity existed before Einstein; however, it was not called a theory because everyone thought it was correct. As far as I know, it was first proposed by Galileo but the consequences were thoroughly implemented by Newton. The issue is the fact that all of physics must be independent of your personal frame of reference. From Newton's perspective, Euclidian geometry was the only rational geometry to use. As a direct consequence, the conversion from one frame of reference to another (presuming the x axis is parallel to the velocity vector) was accomplished via t'=t, x'=x+vt, y'=y and z'=z: where the origins of the two were in the same place when t=0.

It is, in fact, the presumption of most that Newton's assumption was absolutely correct which leads to the problems most have with modern analysis of relativity. But let us leave that issue for the moment. What is important here is that Newton's relativity is entirely general and much useful physics flows from that fact. Newton defined an "inertial frame" as the frame where \vec{F}=m\vec{a} is a valid expression. Of great importance is the fact that accelerated reference frames (frames which are not "inertial") are as useful as inertial frame so long as the consequences of that acceleration are taken into account.[QUOTE]That makes no sense. There is no 'modern analysis of relativity' that disagrees with conventional relativity.

[QUOTE]In particular, rotation leads to effects which are very significant. Centrifugal and coriolis forces are direct consequences of using rotating coordinate systems. The major problem with "special" relativity is the fact that it only provides the relationship between reference frames in the total absence of acceleration. That is, it fact, why it is called "special" relativity! Agreed, SR does not include gravity.

A complete theory must be entirely "general". That is why a "theory of general relativity" was required! Without a "general" theory, we are in as much trouble as we were without the "special" theory. The fact that gravitation could be explained as a consequence of "general" relativity was more of an overwhelming support of Einstein's theory than a necessity of it.
With regard to this issue, you are being a little provincial to say the least. It would be better if you were to say," Since most of the laws of the universe work fine without assuming an absolute reference frame, it is unreasonable to assume one is required to explain most phenomena. With regard to your "generalization", I would like to bring to your attention the following:

Check out http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/

Thus it seems that a valid explanation of the Universe does indeed include a natural unique coordinate system. What I would say is that "special relativity" (the idea that ignorance of distant events is not detrimental to our study of physics) is a very valuable tool for setting up constraints on what is to be expected but is certainly not a "proof" that all physics must be frame independent. In fact we have direct evidence (given above) that all physics is not frame independent.There is no evidence a 'natural unique coordinate system' exists. There is, however, enormous evidence it does not exist.

[russ_watters]

With regard to this issue, you are being a little provincial to say the least. It would be better if you were to say," Since most of the laws of the universe work fine without assuming an absolute reference frame, it is unreasonable to assume one is required to explain most phenomena. With regard to your "generalization", I would like to bring to your attention the following: The CMB does indeed allow us to measure a speed with respect to it - however, that speed is not needed to make any of the calculations 4newton was proposing. Therefore, its not a universal reference frame.

[Doctordick]

Sir Chronos, your responses show little if any thought.
How do you define 'rate'? All definitions I am aware of include the variable 'time'. Please explain how a 'serious discussion of time' excludes time.We cannot have a serious discussion of anything without first defining what it is we are talking about. The issue of this thread is a concise and well thought out definition of "time". One of the first issues of definition itself is that the word being defined is not to be used in the definition. A definition which includes the word "rate" requires a definition of "rate" before it is useable. Since "rate" is generally defined as the ratio between change in something and the change in time, the concept presumes time is defined and thus is not a valid concept within the definition of time.
He did.I would say he is still missing some subtle issues!
Because 4newton was wrong. The issue is settled until new evidence is introduced to refute it. The 'best proven' explanation must be preferred over the 'best unproven' explanation.It appears to me that you have a lot of confidence in what has and what has not been proven. I think it would benefit you to take a little trouble to think about these things.
That makes no sense. There is no 'modern analysis of relativity' that disagrees with conventional relativity.Now I would contend that is a rather extreme statement. They certainly disagree as to the proper equations to be used to transform from one coordinate system to another. You should be more careful in your pronouncements.
Agreed, SR does not include gravity.Neither did Newtonian relativity! What is much more significant is that SR does not include a rule for transforming between accelerating coordinate systems which Newtonian relativity does. It was Einstein's attempts to generalize his theory (an absolute necessity by the way) which lead to the gravitational results. If you look at the fundamental deduction of general relativity, you will find discussion of direct transformations from a coordinate system attached to an accelerating elevator. Problems in measurement arose there which did not allow a simple generalization thus Einstien's result was not unique. A very interesting problem which has recieved little really serious attention.
There is no evidence a 'natural unique coordinate system' exists. There is, however, enormous evidence it does not exist.Now here you are fighting a losing battle as "natural unique coordinate systems" are use all the time on a day to day basis in physics. In fact, lots of different "natural unique coordinate systems" are used. For example, the rest frame of the laboratory in which an experiment is done; or a coordinate system which makes the one way speed of light the same in all directions.

The central issue of relativity is that all these coordinate systems are equally valid. In almost every case, each and every experiment suggests it's own "natural unique coordinate system". It is the fact that the "laws of physics" must be the same in all of these coordinate systems which allows us to determine the required transformation equations between those various coordinate systems.

And finally, to Russ, I still say you are being a bit provincial with your comments. I think it would be worth your while to step back once and look at the fundamental nature of the problems which confront us.
The CMB does indeed allow us to measure a speed with respect to it - however, that speed is not needed to make any of the calculations 4newton was proposing. Therefore, its not a universal reference frame.I would expect a mentor to take a little more care with his comments. What you say cannot possibly be rationally defended as logical.
You are saying that because "that speed is not needed to make any of the calculations 4newton was proposing", it is not a universal reference frame.

You seem not to understand the principle of relativity. The principal or relativity is that all reference frames capable of indicating the information associated with any given experiment are fully useable. If one adds to that the fact that the laws of physics are particularly simple in a specific frame (think of Newton's inertial frame), then all one needs is the specific transformation from the particular simple frame to a frame of reference of interest and one knows what happens in that frame of interest. Einstein's General Relativistic frame is just such a "simple" frame, quite analogous to Newton's inertial frame; however, the required transformations to the frames of interest are not quite as simple as Newton's but they can nonetheless be done.

That fact is used over and over again throughout physics. There are a number of unique frames used all the time. For example, the GPS system is a coordinate system tied to time as measured by a clock in Colorado and is by that fact, a very unique coordinate system. Since it is always possible to set up a specific coordinate system tied to a specific clock the term "universal" could be attached to the concept.

There is another rather unique coordinate system used quite often in a lot of experiments. That would be a coordinate system tied to center of mass of the universe (in this case, read "universe" to be a reference to the collection of entities which are significant to the experiment of interest and may range from no more than the components of a single nucleus to a nuclear accelerator, the solar system, the galaxy or everything including the cosmic background). Call such a coordinate system a CoM system. Certainly the CoM system is unique and it is also quite universal. One can very reasonably suggest that relativity should require the laws of physics to be the same in every CoM system conceivable.

In fact, that is essentially exactly what the COBE scientists did when they documented the solar systems velocity through the universe at 371 km/sec.

But all this is outside the discussion on this thread which is "what is the definition of time?"

Have fun -- Dick

[brodix]

The CMB does indeed allow us to measure a speed with respect to it - however, that speed is not needed to make any of the calculations 4newton was proposing. Therefore, its not a universal reference frame.

Yes, it's not stable. It is expanding.

[brodix]

Dr. Dick,

What is the definition of time?

[russ_watters]

You seem not to understand the principle of relativity. The principal or relativity is that all reference frames capable of indicating the information associated with any given experiment are fully useable. I understand that perfectly fine. There are a number of unique frames used all the time. For example, the GPS system is a coordinate system tied to time as measured by a clock in Colorado and is by that fact, a very unique coordinate system. Since it is always possible to set up a specific coordinate system tied to a specific clock the term "universal" could be attached to the concept. The problem is you misunderstand the word "universal" in this context. The preferred reference frame of GPS is clock in Colorado, but that doesn't make it The universal reference frame. They could use a reference clock located on the moon if they wanted too and the system would still work. The universal reference frame is the frame in which all experiments must be done to get correct results. In 4newton's experiment, for example, only velocities measured against this frame would give "correct" time dilation readings. The M&M experiment works the same way. The logic is sound, but the evidence says this frame doesn't exist: and Relativity (and yes, I did mention that the concept is common to Einstein and Newton) postulates it based on the evidence.

[JoeWade]

your reputation as a cranking troll is well deserved, Dr.Dick

how do you propose to define time without "rates" as you say. do you even have a method to do so? you propose the question "what is time?" then when people respond explaining that it exists as a function of "rates" you tell them they are wrong with no explanation. are you proposing a backwards step from the unification of space-time to space and time as seperate constraints?

please enlighten us with your wisdom, or return to "whatever hole you came from" :D

[brodix]

All motion is relative. If you were to encompass all motion in the universe, it would be the universal reference frame, but you are not, you are measuring some specific process against the rest of the universe, which makes the entire universe relative to it. So, since you have isolated this particular motion from the universal flux, a negative remains. So the universe is effectively moving toward the specific motion, as it moves toward it. Or to put it simply, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
No mention of time or rates.

[Doctordick]

Dr. Dick,

What is the definition of time?
I know what I am talking about when I use the term! The question is, do you? If you do, you should make your position clear; if you cannot, then you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Think it out!

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

Yes, it's not stable. It is expanding.Can you give any evidence of that fact? That is, how do you alone happen to be aware of the fact that the value is changing. Please give me your experimental reference to the fact that the value 371 km/sec is changing.

Have fun -- Dick

[JoeWade]

I know what I am talking about when I use the term! The question is, do you? If you do, you should make your position clear; if you cannot, then you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

are you familiar with the term "Hypocrisy" then, Dr.Dick?

[Doctordick]

your reputation as a cranking troll is well deserved, Dr.Dick

how do you propose to define time without "rates" as you say. do you even have a method to do so? you propose the question "what is time?" then when people respond explaining that it exists as a function of "rates" you tell them they are wrong with no explanation. are you proposing a backwards step from the unification of space-time to space and time as seperate constraints?

please enlighten us with your wisdom, or return to "whatever hole you came from" :DOk, though I can assure you that you will not be able to comprehend it, I will nevertheless give you exactly what I mean when I use the term: time is an ordering of what I know (and what I know changes). The past is what I know and the future is what I do not know (and have hopes of predicting). Time is nothing more than a parameter which I use to refer to a state of presonal knowledge.

Now that could make sense to you if you would take the trouble to think it out.

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

The problem is you misunderstand the word "universal" in this context.I would not argue with that in any way! In fact, that is exactly the issue underlying all of physics. How do I know that I understand the specific meaning of any word you use? You need to define these things and that is a major problem not considered by most.

If you want to discuss the central problem with defininition itself, I am very open to the issue. Are you?

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

are you familiar with the term "Hypocrisy" then, Dr.Dick?I know what I mean when I use the term! Would you take the trouble to specify what you mean when you use the term?

Have fun -- Dick

[JoeWade]

now explain to me the difference of "what you know" versus "what you observe via tools or equipment"

your definition of time is not very useful for quantifying it, and relaying said information in a meaningful matter to another individual...

[Doctordick]

All motion is relative. If you were to encompass all motion in the universe, it would be the universal reference frame, but you are not, you are measuring some specific process against the rest of the universe, which makes the entire universe relative to it. So, since you have isolated this particular motion from the universal flux, a negative remains. So the universe is effectively moving toward the specific motion, as it moves toward it. Or to put it simply, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
No mention of time or rates.And nothing defined either!

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

now explain to me the difference of "what you know" versus "what you observe via tools or equipment"

your definition of time is not very useful for quantifying it, and relaying said information in a meaningful matter to another individual...Are you sure of that? Have you examined (in detail) the consequences of that defintion? I think not!

Have fun -- Dick

[JoeWade]

Are you sure of that? Have you examined (in detail) the consequences of that defintion? I think not!

yes, it's not as deep and meaningful as you make it out to be. again the implications of it are that it is not a useful modus for relaying temporal quantification to another individual.

"what time is lunch?"
"when you know it is lunchtime..."
"uhh... thanks?"

[Chronos]

Sir Chronos,While flattering, the title 'Sir' is unwarranted.your responses show little if any thought.Nor do your unfounded assertions and specious conclusions, IMHO.We cannot have a serious discussion of anything without first defining what it is we are talking about.Agreed.The issue of this thread is a concise and well thought out definition of "time". One of the first issues of definition itself is that the word being defined is not to be used in the definition. A definition which includes the word "rate" requires a definition of "rate" before it is useable. Since "rate" is generally defined as the ratio between change in something and the change in time, the concept presumes time is defined and thus is not a valid concept within the definition of time.Circular logic, at best.It appears to me that you have a lot of confidence in what has and what has not been proven.Agreed. Nothing has been proven. On the other hand, much has been disproven.I think it would benefit you to take a little trouble to think about these things.I have, and still arrive at the same conclusions. You retreat into reductionist logical abstractions and evasive semantical arguments when your assertions collapse under their own weight.Now I would contend that is a rather extreme statement. They certainly disagree as to the proper equations to be used to transform from one coordinate system to another. You should be more careful in your pronouncements. Neither did Newtonian relativity! What is much more significant is that SR does not include a rule for transforming between accelerating coordinate systems which Newtonian relativity does. Huh? I think you have that backwards. It was Einstein's attempts to generalize his theory (an absolute necessity by the way) which lead to the gravitational results.Agreed.If you look at the fundamental deduction of general relativity, you will find discussion of direct transformations from a coordinate system attached to an accelerating elevator.In the interest of avoiding a semantical argument later, explain which 'fundamental deduction of GR' you are talking about. Please phrase it in unambiguous terms that you think that I [and most of the rest of us] can agree upon.Problems in measurement arose there which did not allow a simple generalization thus Einstien's result was not unique. A very interesting problem which has recieved little really serious attention.Please elaborate on what you mean by the 'measurement problems'. I am not aware of any. Please also explain which 'simple generalization' you are referring to.Now here you are fighting a losing battle as "natural unique coordinate systems" are use all the time on a day to day basis in physics. In fact, lots of different "natural unique coordinate systems" are used. For example, the rest frame of the laboratory in which an experiment is done; or a coordinate system which makes the one way speed of light the same in all directions.Most of us call those 'inertial reference frames', not 'natural unique coordinate systems'.The central issue of relativity is that all these coordinate systems are equally valid. In almost every case, each and every experiment suggests it's own "natural unique coordinate system".Agreed. So what is your point? It is the fact that the "laws of physics" must be the same in all of these coordinate systems which allows us to determine the required transformation equations between those various coordinate systems.See prior objection to your prior assertion the the wrong transformations are being used.And finally, to Russ, I still say you are being a bit provincial with your comments. I think it would be worth your while to step back once and look at the fundamental nature of the problems which confront us. I would expect a mentor to take a little more care with his comments. What you say cannot possibly be rationally defended as logical.Your conclusion is not supported by facts in evidence... at least none among the unsupported arguments you made in this post. Russ's, on the other hand, appear sound.You are saying that because "that speed is not needed to make any of the calculations 4newton was proposing", it is not a universal reference frame.And he is entirely justified in that assertion. It agrees with all known theory and observations.You seem not to understand the principle of relativity.Russ is not the one who appears to be confused about the principles of relativity, or logic.The principal or relativity is that all reference frames capable of indicating the information associated with any given experiment are fully useable. If one adds to that the fact that the laws of physics are particularly simple in a specific frame (think of Newton's inertial frame), then all one needs is the specific transformation from the particular simple frame to a frame of reference of interest and one knows what happens in that frame of interest. Einstein's General Relativistic frame is just such a "simple" frame, quite analogous to Newton's inertial frame; however, the required transformations to the frames of interestWhat 'frames of interest'?...are not quite as simple as Newton's but they can nonetheless be done. That fact is used over and over again throughout physics. There are a number of unique frames used all the time.Unique with respect to what? They all look 'relativistic' to me. For example, the GPS system is a coordinate system tied to time as measured by a clock in Colorado and is by that fact, a very unique coordinate system.Not unique. Since it is always possible to set up a specific coordinate system tied to a specific clock the term "universal" could be attached to the concept.Universal? with respect to what? There is another rather unique coordinate system used quite often in a lot of experiments. That would be a coordinate system tied to center of mass of the universe (in this case, read "universe" to be a reference to the collection of entities which are significant to the experiment of interest and may range from no more than the components of a single nucleus to a nuclear accelerator, the solar system, the galaxy or everything including the cosmic background). Call such a coordinate system a CoM system. Certainly the CoM system is unique and it is also quite universal. One can very reasonably suggest that relativity should require the laws of physics to be the same in every CoM system conceivable.Relativity already does that.In fact, that is essentially exactly what the COBE scientists did when they documented the solar systems velocity through the universe at 371 km/sec.

But all this is outside the discussion on this thread which is "what is the definition of time?"The interval I wasted posting this response.

[4newton]

Here is a definition of time that does not use rate, or time and is universal.

Time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. Our transition outward from the Big Bang is in what we recognize as the time dimension. The transition is at a speed equal to the speed of light.
This transition is the stabilizing mechanism of the universe. All spatial dimensions are referenced to this transition and it gives us the definition of velocity. All motion in any spatial direction is shown as perpendicular to this transition.

[russ_watters]

your reputation as a... Easy, JoeWade. No need to feed the "..." If you want to discuss the central problem with defininition itself, I am very open to the issue. Are you? Absolutely not. The term in question has a specific meaning in this context (as do pretty much all words scientists use) and you are using it incorrectly. There is no room for discussion. This isn't the philosphy forum. Either you discuss science on its own terms here or not at all.

It seems your only contribution here ever is arguing over definitions. I have yet to see any actual science from you. Perhaps you'd do better in our philosophy forums?

And your patronizing tone is most unwelcome here.

4newton - sorry this thread got hijacked (then again, he did start the thread...). We seemed to be making some progress and if you want to continue, by all means do...

[brodix]

Dr. D,

Ok, though I can assure you that you will not be able to comprehend it, I will nevertheless give you exactly what I mean when I use the term: time is an ordering of what I know (and what I know changes). The past is what I know and the future is what I do not know (and have hopes of predicting). Time is nothing more than a parameter which I use to refer to a state of presonal knowledge.

Actually this is a generally rational statement. Not very descriptive though. I realize your mental blocks are not going to accept anything I have to say, but you might want to review Complexity Theory and transpose past with order and future with chaos. One of the basic insights of Complexity Theory is the dichotomy between top down order and bottom up growth. It corresponds with my point about time having two directions; The entity/set/top down order is going from beginning to end, while the process/bottom up growth is going toward the next generation, leaving the old....

What is first, past or future? From our perspective, past events proceed future ones, but from the perspective of the events, say your birthday, they are first in the future, then in the past...

The trick here is to take a big breath, now start thinking... no, no, not the spleen, the brain! I'm sure it used to work just fine, now climb up out of that depression and remember, nobody really cares what you think, so don't get so self conscious about it. Clear the brain, start over again.

regards,

brodix

[JoeWade]

Time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. Our transition outward from the Big Bang is in what we recognize as the time dimension. The transition is at a speed equal to the speed of light.
This transition is the stabilizing mechanism of the universe. All spatial dimensions are referenced to this transition and it gives us the definition of velocity. All motion in any spatial direction is shown as perpendicular to this transition.

but all "transition" is performed at a rate...

even transitions of the mind, Dr.Dick

[4newton]

4newton - sorry this thread got hijacked (then again, he did start the thread...). We seemed to be making some progress and if you want to continue, by all means do...

I have created an experiment to help understand our points of view.

It would help if you gave me your view of the experiment and the expected results. This will point out where we have a disagreement, if any.

Space-time Special Relativity Experiment
This is not just a mind experiment. This low cost experiment may be done with equipment available in any science facility.

Equipment required
1.Three resettable clocks with a repetition rate in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 pulses per second.
2.Three high-speed resettable time bases.
3. Three high-speed gated counters.
4 One gated or pulsed light source.
5 two high-speed photo detectors.

. G
. |
. |
. D4
. |
. |
. E------------------------------ F
. |--------------D1--------------|
. |---------------------- F2
. |---------D2----------- | -D3- |

Three identical clocks are placed at positions E, F, and G. All clocks are repetitive and synchronized so that all clocks repeat zero at the same time. Included in each clock are synchronized high-speed time bases.

The clock at E is used to send a light pulse to F and G at time zero of the clocks.

At time zero counters at positions F and G start accumulating the output from the high-speed time base until the light pulse is received from E. This repeated accumulation might continue for any desired time period effectively adding distance on each clock cycle. The greater the number of cycles the higher the resolution of the measurement. If a high repetition rate is used an effective measurement of millions of meters may be achieved in a short time.

Dt1 = D1 * N

Where Dt1 is total distance and N = the number of cycles of the clock.

The same is true for all accumulated time measurements in this experiment.

All clocks may be synchronized and zeroed using the light pulse from E when the system is moving at a velocity V1. After synchronization with the system moving at any velocity all accumulated time will be the same on all clocks.
After synchronization any change in velocity may result in a change of accumulated time between clocks. The clocks may be stopped at any time to take a reading of accumulated time.

The diagram shows a system with the clocks at E, F, and G. The initial system has a velocity of V1 where V1 => 0. The time required for the light to go from E to F is
(D1 / c) = t1
where (c) is the speed of light.

The time required for light to go from E to G is
(D4 / c ) = t3

With each cycle of the clock time t1 and t3 are added to their respective counters.

After synchronization and zeroing of the clocks and time bases the system is then allowed to increase velocity to V2 where V2 > V1.
At velocity V2 the clock F should be at position F2 at the same time the light pulse from E arrives at that point. The resulting distance for the light to travel to the F clock from E is D2 and the time to D2 is

(D2 / c ) = t2

Accumulated time over a period at clock G should remain constant regardless of the velocity of the system as the change of path from E to G remains unchanged as the velocity of the system is changed in the EF direction.

A change of the accumulated time at counter F should be less than G because the distance from E to F, D1 changed to D2 when the system is moving at a velocity of V2

If any changes are to be seen as velocity changes from V1 to V2 this experiment should detect the changes.

If no changes are measured within this system SR then tells us nothing and has no reality within the system.

Is there a measurable change when looking from one system at V1 to another system at V2?
If there is a measurable change from one system to another is it real or just the result of distortion of observation caused by the limit of the speed of light?

[Chronos]

You are trying to compare local inertial reference frames to some sort of 'universal' reference frame. The results will never make sense until you apply relatavistic corrections. Until you acknowledge the fact there are no 'preferred' reference frames, none of this will ever make sense to you. I am not trying to be critical, merely pointing out the assumptions you are using are incorrect.

[what_are_electrons]

I've read about half of this thread. Very interesting.

WRT the concept of time, please consider three questions:
What natural occurence caused man to produce the very first unit of time?
Does time, as a unit of measure, really exist?
Do we really need this unit of measure?

...

[4newton]

but all "transition" is performed at a rate...
You are correct. Our discussion here is limited to the nature of time in our universe and the quantum world.

The explanation I gave for time can account for all things only in our universe.

Our transition in the time dimension is an absolute reference in our universe. It is absolute for us because we have no power or ability to change our transition outward from the Big Bang, time base, using any of the physics we know about at this time.

A rate by definition is a reference of one thing to another, miles in reference to time, three apples for every two oranges dropping to the ground… Time, the transition from the Big Bang, may be referenced to something else. That reference however has no influence on anything in our universe and we have no indication or its existence. With out some clue it is impossible if not very difficult to discover its nature. (We seem to be able to do the impossible but very difficult is much harder in my experience).

The view may be taken that the rate of time is in reference to a fifth dimension. This view could go on forever.

For us, with our limited ability, this may be the same as the question of God, what is the prime.
The unbreakable law is that we can not know anything that would remove our free will. You must always be able to deny that God exists.

We should be happy that we are even able to arrive at some understanding of the nature of time.

[Chronos]

I've read about half of this thread. Very interesting.

WRT the concept of time, please consider three questions:
What natural occurence caused man to produce the very first unit of time?Observation.
Does time, as a unit of measure, really exist?If not, then we cannot make meaningful observations.Do we really need this unit of measure?Not unless you wish to make meaningful observations and predictions.

Time is an unavoidable consequence of any universe that permits itself to be observed. We observe the universe, therefore, time exists. Time is an inherent and required feature of any universe that includes causality.

[russ_watters]

I have created an experiment to help understand our points of view.... What was wrong with your other experiment? It was a lot simpler (frankly, I can't understand what you are saying in this one), its results are easy to predict, and its implications for other experiments already performed are obvious. I always get the impression that once a thought experiment is explained unsatisfactorily (to the person who doesn't like SR) a new and more complicated one is created and the first one ignored in an attempt to obfuscate the issue. Intentional or not, this will keep you from understanding the problem with what you are saying. Please just stop and think about the implications from your 1st thought experiment - and please don't hide behind the fact that its a thought experiment (it is, actually, a good thought experiment).

For example, if your experiment succeeded and found a universal reference frame, what would you predict the results of the Michelson Morely experiment to be? What about pion decay experiments? What about the behavior of GPS satellites.

This is intriguing though: If there is a measurable change from one system to another is it real or just the result of distortion of observation caused by the limit of the speed of light? There is a measurable change in clock rate with speed, it is real, and it is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light.

I'm also still waiting for you to say if you viewed the power point presentation I linked.

[russ_watters]

Time is an unavoidable consequence of any universe that permits itself to be observed. We observe the universe, therefore, time exists. Time is an inherent and required feature of any universe that includes causality. To say otherwise (as some people do) is equivalent to saying "length" does not exist or is undefined.

[4newton]

What was wrong with your other experiment? It was a lot simpler (frankly, I can't understand what you are saying in this one), its results are easy to predict, and its implications for other experiments already performed are obvious.

There was nothing wrong with the other experiment except that you agreed through many of the points then changed you mind and jumped form SR to GR it did not seem that you were able to follow the line of thought presented. In other words you are just confused.

I have now given you a simple real experiment, not just a thought experiment, that you say you don’t understand but has results you can predict. You need to explain that concept to me.

If you have some questions about the experiment please feel free to ask and I will explain them to you. You need to tell me what you don’t understand about clocks, timers, distance, or the speed of light.

For example, if your experiment succeeded and found a universal reference frame, what would you predict the results of the Michelson Morley experiment to be? What about pion decay experiments? What about the behavior of GPS satellites.

The M&M experiment has nothing to do with this experiment; we are not talking about aeather drag or any concept of the aeather. I see no disagreement with any other experiment. Please be more specific about the conflicts you are thinking about.

I'm also still waiting for you to say if you viewed the power point presentation I linked.

I did look at it and I assumed it was meant to be insulting. If you were in earnest then you mistake understanding with my questions about the theory. You have never explained where my understanding is incorrect. You only restate that it violates SR. There have been very few experiments done to test SR. there have been the same experiment done many times but the questions I raise have not been tested. Some of the questions I ask you are to find out your understanding with the hope to find common ground between us and a starting point..

[russ_watters]

There was nothing wrong with the other experiment except that you agreed through many of the points then changed you mind and jumped form SR to GR it did not seem that you were able to follow the line of thought presented. In other words you are just confused. C'mon now, there was no such problem. GR had nothing to do with it and I never said it did. It was a simple experiment with a simple prediction. I understand what you were going for just fine, its just that your prediction is wrong. I want to explore that to see if I can make you understand why. I have now given you a simple real experiment, not just a thought experiment... Any experiment that has never been performed is a thought experiment - both of your experiments are thought experiments.You need to tell me what you don’t understand about clocks, timers, distance, or the speed of light. Its not the laws of physics I don't understand, its your experimental setup. In any case, I don't want to get into that. Why bring up a new problem when we never resolved the old one? The M&M experiment has nothing to do with this experiment; we are not talking about aeather drag or any concept of the aeather. The aether, is the Universal Reference Frame. Finding the Universal Reference Frame means finding the aether and finding the aether means finding the Universal Reference Frame. I see no disagreement with any other experiment. Please be more specific about the conflicts you are thinking about. If you don't see any disagreement between what your experiment/hypothesis would mean for M&M or other experiments, then we're back to you not understanding what SR says.

Tell me this: when calculating the SR time dilation on a clock on a GPS satellite, what velocity should I use? As I said before, your experiment implies that since we do not know the 'real' velocity with respect to the Universal Reference Frame, we do not have a velocity to use to calculate the performance of a GPS clock. Ergo, if you are correct, the GPS system should not work. I did look at it and I assumed it was meant to be insulting. If you were in earnest then you mistake understanding with my questions about the theory. You have never explained where my understanding is incorrect. Insulting? What are you talking about? I'm trying to help you here and that presentation went straight to the heart of the matter. It virtually word-for-word agreed with what I was saying. You only restate that it violates SR. There have been very few experiments done to test SR. there have been the same experiment done many times but the questions I raise have not been tested. How can you say that? I have linked a number of experiments. Why haven't you commented on them? The pion decay experiment seems relevant: Why doesn't a pion fired east travel further than one fired west? And since your experiment involves clocks moving in space relative to an arbitrary reference point, I would think you would see the GPS system - which involves clocks moving in space relative to an arbitrary reference point - would be particularly relevant.

Maybe it was a mistake to restart this - I'm starting to wonder if you are making a sincere effort here.

[russ_watters]

Some quotes from the LINKED PRESENTAION (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae611.cfm) I consider important:

The first directly addresses what we discussed above: the relevance of ether and the M&M experiment (particularly, the last sentence): Newton's concept was that there was some universal reference frame against which all measurements could be referenced. It became known as the ether.....

However, it proved to be wrong. More on M&M - this is exactly what the purpose of your thought experiment is: [M&M] proposed to determine the earth's motion through the ether. One part you've never mentioned is the implication in your thought experiment that the speed of light is not constant to all observers. This is what the implication of the M&M experiment is: Either the earth was not moving or the speed of light did not change acording to the motion of the light source.

The first could be ruled out, so the second had to be true.

But this violated the certainty of Newton's assumption of a universal reference frame. Skippping to Einstein's SR. It has two postulates. The first is precisely contradictory to your assertion: There is no absolute reference frame. On testing: His predictions have been tested experimentally and they have never failed. As you can see, there is quite a lot in that presentation that directly and specifically contradicts what you are saying.

[Doctordick]

yes, it's not as deep and meaningful as you make it out to be. again the implications of it are that it is not a useful modus for relaying temporal quantification to another individual.I am afraid you are totally wrong in that judgment. The implications are very deep and in fact, in the final analysis, yield exactly the characteristics you deem essential to your provincial issues: i.e., "what time is lunch?"

No definition more complex than the one I gave is needed. All, and I mean all, of the characteristics of "time" required to do modern physics flow inevitably from that exact definition. That is, for anyone with sufficient attention span to consider the detailed consequences.
Nor do your unfounded assertions and specious conclusions, IMHO.I am sorry, but my assertions are based on extremely careful analysis. My only reason for posting here is an attempt to find some one with sufficient interest and attention span to consider my arguments. It would be a shame to see my discoveries die with me as appears to be the actual case.
We cannot have a serious discussion of anything without first defining what it is we are talking about.Agreed.
It is nice to obtain some agreement! Definition is quite important as it is quite easy to misinterpret what another says if the meanings of things are not thoroughly and exactly tied down. For example, in the following exchange, either you misunderstand what I said or I misunderstand what you are saying: i.e., either you are agreeing with me or you are misunderstanding me.
The issue of this thread is a concise and well thought out definition of "time". One of the first issues of definition itself is that the word being defined is not to be used in the definition. A definition which includes the word "rate" requires a definition of "rate" before it is useable. Since "rate" is generally defined as the ratio between change in something and the change in time, the concept presumes time is defined and thus is not a valid concept within the definition of time.Circular logic, at best.That is, I essentially said that using "rate" to define "time" is a circular definition and your comment appears to be saying that my argument is circular reasoning.
Agreed. Nothing has been proven. On the other hand, much has been disproven.Agreement again! I am astounded! However, I would throw in a minor cavil which, in all probability you will fail to comprehend: disproving something requires one to understand that which he is disproving. Sometimes people are disproving what they think someone has said, not what he has said! Careful thought is careful thought and one should go to great pains to make sure one does not misrepresent an issue.
I think it would benefit you to take a little trouble to think about these things.I have, and still arrive at the same conclusions. You retreat into reductionist logical abstractions and evasive semantical arguments when your assertions collapse under their own weight.No, I don't think you have. You contend that I retreat into "reductionist logical abstractions" when, in fact, the only reason I bring up reductionist ideas is to point out the inevitable uselessness of such an attack; however, it is nonetheless very important to remember the fact that the truth of any deductions must collapse down to the necessity of the original premises.

Secondly, I wouldn't say that I retreat into "evasive semantical arguments". What I am doing is trying to point out to you that there is significant room for alternate attacks here. I am trying to open your mind to possibilities presently beyond your comprehension.

Finally, please point to an assertion I have made which "collapses under its own weight".
Now I would contend that is a rather extreme statement. They certainly disagree as to the proper equations to be used to transform from one coordinate system to another. You should be more careful in your pronouncements. Neither did Newtonian relativity! What is much more significant is that SR does not include a rule for transforming between accelerating coordinate systems which Newtonian relativity does.Huh? I think you have that backwards.No, rather I suspect you did not understand what I said. SR certainly does not include a rule for transforming between acceleration coordinate systems. In order to do that, we must go to GR. Newton's relativity is entirely general as the transform equations between accelerating systems can be deduced directly from the nature of the Euclidian coordinate system: get any decent text on classical mechanics and look up centrifugal and/or coriolis forces. Both arise from the fact that the coordinate system being used is not inertial. In Einstein's system, gravity arises because the coordinate system being used is not inertial; if you don't understand that then you do not understand GR.

Thank you also for agreeing with my statement that Einstein's generalization of his theory of relativity led to gravitational results; however, most everybody agrees with that. I thank you nonetheless.

If you look at the fundamental deduction of general relativity, you will find discussion of direct transformations from a coordinate system attached to an accelerating elevator.
In the interest of avoiding a semantical argument later, explain which 'fundamental deduction of GR' you are talking about. Please phrase it in unambiguous terms that you think that I [and most of the rest of us] can agree upon.When Einstein worked out his general theory, he was faced with the problem of defining a rigid object in an accelerated frame (he uses the analysis of an accelerated elevator as the bridge between the two frames). It is clear that in a general accelerated frame, definition of a rigid object is certainly impossible and this does yield some uncertainty in the proper form of the transformations between general frames. As such, it also yields subtle variations in the gravitational possibilities. This is exactly the reason behind that term which was, on different occasions, either inserted or omitted from his theory (check the development of general relativity and you will find the term I refer to).

In my work, I have discovered a subtle way around that problem which eliminates the need to define a rigid object and thus yields only one possibility (unless I have made a mistake of course; however, I have not found any mistake and no one else has offered to help look for one).
Most of us call those 'inertial reference frames', not 'natural unique coordinate systems'.Oh, I understand exactly what you mean. The only reason I chose to call them "natural unique coordinate systems" was because most scientists give little attention to the fact that they assume the particular coordinate systems they like to use are "natural". If physics is to be an exact science, these issues have to be taken seriously. There is a long discussion which could be had on that subject but I don't think it would serve much purpose here and now. I would much rather get you to think about some other subtle facts and their consequences.

(to be continued!!)

[Doctordick]

The central issue of relativity is that all these coordinate systems are equally valid. In almost every case, each and every experiment suggests its own "natural unique coordinate system".Agreed. So what is your point?That there are a large number of different ways a coordinate system can be set up. Careless definition of time (essentially the act of presuming you know what the term means without considering all possible consequences) is simply unscientific.
It is the fact that the "laws of physics" must be the same in all of these coordinate systems which allows us to determine the required transformation equations between those various coordinate systems.See prior objection to your prior assertion the the wrong transformations are being used.I have no idea what assertion you are referring to here.
And finally, to Russ, I still say you are being a bit provincial with your comments. I think it would be worth your while to step back once and look at the fundamental nature of the problems which confront us. I would expect a mentor to take a little more care with his comments. What you say cannot possibly be rationally defended as logical.Your conclusion is not supported by facts in evidence... at least none among the unsupported arguments you made in this post. Russ's, on the other hand, appear sound.Then you are not looking at Russ's comment carefully! Look carefully at the following where you quote me:
You are saying that because "that speed is not needed to make any of the calculations 4newton was proposing", it is not a universal reference frame.And he is entirely justified in that assertion. It agrees with all known theory and observations.If you look at what he said, you should be able to see that the statement "it [the frame which was used to derive the 371 km/sec velocity] is not a universal reference frame" is simply not a logical consequence of "that speed is not needed to make any of the calculations 4newton was proposing". It makes no difference whether the conclusion is true or false or is justified by any other arguments; the point I was making was that it simply is not a valid logical deduction. His use of the word "because" implied he was stating a specific logical deduction. This is a no more than a simple sign of sloppy thinking on his part.
Russ is not the one who appears to be confused about the principles of relativity, or logic.Now that is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that he is either confused or sloppy.
The principal or relativity is that all reference frames capable of indicating the information associated with any given experiment are fully useable. If one adds to that the fact that the laws of physics are particularly simple in a specific frame (think of Newton's inertial frame), then all one needs is the specific transformation from the particular simple frame to a frame of reference of interest and one knows what happens in that frame of interest. Einstein's General Relativistic frame is just such a "simple" frame, quite analogous to Newton's inertial frame; however, the required transformations to the frames of interestWhat 'frames of interest'?Whatever frame you happen to want to make your measurements in!
...are not quite as simple as Newton's but they can nonetheless be done. That fact is used over and over again throughout physics. There are a number of unique frames used all the time.Unique with respect to what? They all look 'relativistic' to me.Unique to the measurement equipment or analysis one is using. That comment "They all look 'relativistic' to me" is a little on the meaningless side. Unless you have more than one coordinate system of interest, there are no transformations to be performed! The adjective "relativistic" has meaning only with regard to transformation relations and is in no way applicable to a specific coordinate system standing alone! If you cannot understand that, then you simply do not understand the nature of coordinate geometry.
For example, the GPS system is a coordinate system tied to time as measured by a clock in Colorado and is by that fact, a very unique coordinate system.Not unique.It isn't? How many coordinate systems are there where t is exactly what is given by that atomic clock in Colorado, barring trivial rotations and translations?
Since it is always possible to set up a specific coordinate system tied to a specific clock the term "universal" could be attached to the concept.Universal? with respect to what?Why with respect to the possibility of applying the concept to another circumstance! Doesn't "universal" mean that the system applicable to all cases?
There is another rather unique coordinate system used quite often in a lot of experiments. That would be a coordinate system tied to center of mass of the universe (in this case, read "universe" to be a reference to the collection of entities which are significant to the experiment of interest and may range from no more than the components of a single nucleus to a nuclear accelerator, the solar system, the galaxy or everything including the cosmic background). Call such a coordinate system a CoM system. Certainly the CoM system is unique and it is also quite universal. One can very reasonably suggest that relativity should require the laws of physics to be the same in every CoM system conceivable.Relativity already does that.Tell me please, where did I say it didn't?
In fact, that is essentially exactly what the COBE scientists did when they documented the solar systems velocity through the universe at 371 km/sec.

But all this is outside the discussion on this thread which is "what is the definition of time?"The interval I wasted posting this response.Well, now you need to define "interval".

The central issue of this thread is the fact that time (as used by the scientific community) is not a well defined concept. This is only the tip of the iceberg of sloppy thinking. The issue of definition is one of the most important issues of any scientific investigation. The presumption that you understand exactly what is being said is one of the most dangerous presumptions of science which can be made. The possibility of misunderstanding is always present and the consequences of that possibility should be reckoned with fully.

Suppose there exists an entity we can communicate with which has the correct explanation of everything. If that is the case then our problem is to eliminate misunderstanding. That entity exists! It is called reality and it stands talking to us on a daily basis. Our only problem is to carefully analyze what it is saying to us without making assumptions about what the "words" (our experiences) mean.

The central problem is definition itself. –Now that is an assertion!- I will defend it in detail to anyone who cares to discuss it. Mr. Watters has already specifically rejected it as a subject worthy of discussion:
Absolutely not. \dots There is no room for discussion. This isn't the philosphy forum. Either you discuss science on its own terms here or not at all.He isn't the first to suggest my work is philosophy; most all physicists make that assertion. The Philosophers tell me it's mathematics and the mathematicians tell me it's physics. So round and round I go and where I stop no one knows!!

I think the sciences are a magnet to idiot savants! If they learn the rules it isn't necessary to understand anything to be at the top of the field. Thought is just not a necessary ingredient to their success.
And your patronizing tone is most unwelcome here.Oh, then you would rather I showed respect for what I personally find to be seriously sloppy thinking? So it's a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" organization is it? Well, you can count me out of that solipsistic exchange. I find myself very happy to have reached an acceptable state of retirement without ever having had to subvert my behavior to the opinions of others. I don't think many have managed to do such a thing and count it as a major accomplishment.

Oh yes! Thank you for admitting that you hijacked my thread and not the converse. Why not move your self serving pontifications somewhere else; you have a lot more influence with authority on this forum than I do.

Have fun -- Dick

[brodix]

4 newton,

Time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. Our transition outward from the Big Bang is in what we recognize as the time dimension. The transition is at a speed equal to the speed of light.
This transition is the stabilizing mechanism of the universe. All spatial dimensions are referenced to this transition and it gives us the definition of velocity. All motion in any spatial direction is shown as perpendicular to this transition.

This was one of Stephen Hawking's definitions of time. Einstein's reference was gravity and the prediction that the universe would collapse to a point. One arrow of time is expanding energy, the other is collapsing mass.

The basis of your assumption that there is a universal clock seems to be the timeframe of the Big Bang. While it is useless to argue against the Big Bang Theory, rgy, even reputable scientists are starting to consider what might have come before. If the singularity was proceeded by a big crunch, or some other form of cycling process, then our universe constitutes a unit of time, one defined by the material consequences of gravity,radiation and whatever other forces which might be proposed. These are relativistic processes.

When the energy which constitutes this particular unit of time, called the universe, is finished this cycle, it goes on to others. So, the unit of time goes start to finish, while the process goes on to the next generation....

[brodix]

4 newton,

Time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. Our transition outward from the Big Bang is in what we recognize as the time dimension. The transition is at a speed equal to the speed of light.
This transition is the stabilizing mechanism of the universe. All spatial dimensions are referenced to this transition and it gives us the definition of velocity. All motion in any spatial direction is shown as perpendicular to this transition.

The irony of this assumption is that it is only valid if all energy considered constitutes a closed set, yet the Big Bang has reached the point of having to say that ninety six percent of all matter and energy cannot be accounted for. If even one electron were to seep in from a previously unaccounted dimension, it would cause cascading chaos to the presumed order of this system.

[4newton]

Hi Russ;

4newton:
You read the post on the GPS system. I think you agree it works. Do you also agree, disregarding gravity, that if you take a clock, as they did in the GPS system, from earth surface to the orbital distance of the GPS that your clock will slow down? Like wise if you take a clock from the GPS orbit to the earth surface it will speed up? GPS satellites have their clock rates calibrated prior to launch using Einstein's prediction so that once in orbit they stay in sync with ground-based clocks.

Russ:
Absolutely. The question is how much.

4newton:
I think we have a starting point.
The main point is that we now agree that the rate of clocks is bi-directional. If a clock ( L ) that has been moving with a velocity in a spatial dimension and has a spatial velocity that is less than clock ( M ) and clock ( H ) and clock ( M ) has been moving at a velocity that is less than clock ( H ) then, clock ( H ) will run the slowest and clock ( L ) will run the fastest and by agreement, clock ( M ) is in the exact middle and has a rate to that effect.
If we bring all three clocks together, after a set time period, without changing the conditions of clock ( M ) then, clock ( L ) will have accumulated the most time and clock ( H ) will have accumulated the least time.

Do we still agree?

Russ:
Yep. Still there.

4newton;
It has been agreed that:
If a clock moves from reference frame ( H ) to reference frame ( M ) the clock will have an increase in rate, the clock will tick faster. Like wise a clock that moves from ( M ) to ( L ) will again increase in rate.
Therefore if the rate of a clock is relative only from frame to frame then the process may continue without limit and the clock rate will increase with out limit. You have but two choices. A point where velocity may be absolute zero or time rate without limits.
This of course also applies to meter rods. Your meter rod would increase to infinity.

Do we still agree?

Russ:
You said nothing in your last post about a clock moving into a different reference frame. All you had were 3 clocks in 3 frames moving at 3 speeds. But if you accelerate H's clock to M's speed, its tick rate will slow down relative to a stationary observer.
Clock H is moving faster and is decelerated to the speed of M the clock rate must increase. Each time the clock moves to a slower frame the clock rate must increase.

4newton:
Therefore if the rate of a clock is relative only from frame to frame then the process may continue without limit and the clock rate will increase with out limit.

Russ:
Except for the caveat that no clock can stop due to time dilation because no clock can go the speed of light, there is no limit to how different the readings of two identical clocks can be.

4newton:
You have but two choices. A point where velocity may be absolute zero or time rate without limits.

Russ:
Since nowhere in any of this has the word "absoute" appeared, it doesn't belong there either. In fact, it directly contradicts everything we were just agreeing on: if everything is relative (except C), then how can anything be absolute?

Maybe I should have forced you to specify after you first brought up the speeds of M, L, and H: speed relative to what? A stationary observer is, of course, the answer, but thats still not good enough: is that an absolutely or relatively stationary observer? If you say absolutely, then you are assuming that speed is absolute, not demonstrating it.
You only need speed relative to each other but it would make no difference. the whole object is to indicate the change of clock rate with change of velocity is bi-directional
This is why I have gone to a real experiment. You asked for a demonstration that speed is absolute.

[4newton]

Hi Russ
Any experiment that has never been performed is a thought experiment - both of your experiments are thought experiments.
My view is that a thought experiment was created when it was not possible to run a real experiment. This is not the case with my experiment.
Its not the laws of physics I don't understand, its your experimental setup. In any case, I don't want to get into that. Why bring up a new problem when we never resolved the old one?
This is a better experiment then any observations to date. All the clocks moving in the same frame cancel the effect of velocity on clock time. There are no observational distortions from frame to frame. It measures the speed of light relative to the direction of travel verses perpendicular to the direction of travel. It measures the speed of light with a one way path. The resolution of the measurement is without limit. Calibration is automatic and independent of outside reference. It is also easy and cheep to setup.

All I would like you to tell me if you will see a difference between the accumulated time on the clock that is measuring the direction of travel verses the perpendicular clock. If not why not?
The aether, is the Universal Reference Frame. Finding the Universal Reference Frame means finding the aether and finding the aether means finding the Universal Reference Frame.
I don’t see that it is important with this question at this time. As you said, “Why bring up a new problem”
Tell me this: when calculating the SR time dilation on a clock on a GPS satellite, what velocity should I use? I said before, your experiment implies that since we do not know the 'real' velocity with respect to the Universal Reference Frame, we do not have a velocity to use to calculate the performance of a GPS clock. Ergo, if you are correct, the GPS system should not work.
The GPS system is using a number of about 2.4 ns per meter/sec from zero velocity. They seem to think there is a zero velocity. They used the number of 2160 ns from the surface of the earth to 9360 ns to the satellite or a difference of 7200 ns. They may have taken two or three measurement of change of rate at different velocities and projected back on the curve to zero.

[4newton]

This was one of Stephen Hawking's definitions of time.

When and where did Hawking describe this explanation of time?

It is always interesting to speculate on what was before the Big Bang but the evidence is very slim to work with. In fact religion seem to have more fact than physics in that area.

One question that we can ask and maybe some day find out is if the Big Bang was a single event or was it one of many cycles. Are we just the plus or one half of a full cycle just like any wave. Also are there other universes just behind us, maybe just micro seconds away? Is our positive universe balanced by the negative part of the cycle with antimatter in the other half?

These are just some thought without any evidence but I find them fun.

[4newton]

Hi Brodix;
The irony of this assumption is that it is only valid if all energy considered constitutes a closed set, yet the Big Bang has reached the point of having to say that ninety six percent of all matter and energy cannot be accounted for. If even one electron were to seep in from a previously unaccounted dimension, it would cause cascading chaos to the presumed order of this system.

This theory is not dependent on a closed universe, in fact it supports the open universe. All the energy of the universe will just continue outward at the speed of light until the energy differential is less than planck level and all action will cease. (There is no dark matter)

[Neo]

One question that we can ask and maybe some day find out is if the Big Bang was a single event or was it one of many cycles. Are we just the plus or one half of a full cycle just like any wave. Also are there other universes just behind us, maybe just micro seconds away? Is our positive universe balanced by the negative part of the cycle with antimatter in the other half?

These are just some thought without any evidence but I find them fun.


I, too, find them quite fun. [Sticks tongue out like Einstein]

With respect to time dilation...

During the Big Bang, when space was expanding explosively (probably at light speed) -- what was time doing? Was time at a standstill (or very dilated) during the explosive growth of the three spatial dimensions? Or was time expanding explosively since it's in a continuum with space?

[axawire]

DoctorDick,

Your definition of time is inherently floored! For if you died, time would no longer exist for the rest of us :-(

Think about it!

Have fun -- Dick

[russ_watters]

Clock H is moving faster and is decelerated to the speed of M the clock rate must increase. Each time the clock moves to a slower frame the clock rate must increase. Yes, I understand your assertion. Its quite simple. So please explore the implications of your assertion by making predictions about the related experiments I posted.I don’t see that it is important with this question at this time. Since you are trying to find the universal reference frame, why don't you consider a past attempt to find the universal reference frame important? Perhaps if you examined the past failed attempt, you'd understand why your attempt would fail: your attempt would fail for the same reason M&M's attempt failed. Isn't understanding why important to you? As you said, “Why bring up a new problem” Well, you did ask for evidence, didn't you? Since your experiments have never been performed, the only way to predict what will happen is by looking at experiments that have been performed. And maybe that's part of the problem: you don't want to do that. You want to make your prediction based on your preconcieved notion of how the universe should work. Thats not scientific.
The GPS system is using a number of about 2.4 ns per meter/sec from zero velocity. Actually, the SR deviation is 7,000 ns per day, which gives me .24ns/day/m/s, but you can't really express it in a linear relationship. But whatever - the point is there is a calculated deviation. They seem to think there is a zero velocity. Indeed they do. But according to you, we haven't found that reference frame yet. So how can they use that number?They may have taken two or three measurement of change of rate at different velocities and projected back on the curve to zero. May have? No, in fact the GPS system was not set up via trial and error. It was calculated ahead of time. In addition, since the satellites orbit in different inclinations, the deviations (by implication from your hypothesis) should be different. They aren't.

How do you reconcile this with your assertions? How do you reconcile the fact that the quotes fom the presentation clearly and specifically contradict your points? You seem to be ignoring those points. 4newton, it seems to me like you are at a crossroads here: you can either accept reality at face value or ignore it in favor of obfuscation. You seem to be choosing to ignore it.

[Doctordick]

DoctorDick,

Your definition of time is inherently floored! For if you died, time would no longer exist for the rest of us :-(

Think about it!

Have fun -- DickAh, inherently floored is it? I would suggest you think a little before you go off half cocked! I presume you meant to say "flawed" and the best interpretation I can think of is that your complaint was meant to be totally facetious. Taken seriously, it does little but point out your limited ability to think. There is nothing in my definition of time which changed either by my birth or my death (other than the fact that "my personal knowledge of the universe" did not exist before I was born and ceases to change when I die)! Are you contending that you knew something of the universe before you were born? Or perhaps that your knowledge of the universe will continue to change after you die? If so, I would certainly like to see some of your evidence.

I am presently aware of many things which occurred before I was born (the past is what I know) and the things I do not know (the future is that which I do not know) could very well be infinite. I would rather say, under my definition of time, when I die, time would no longer exist for me. What will exist for the rest of you is fundamentally unknown but is most probably not much different from what existed for you in the past.

I gave you my definition of time which was specific and exact. No one on this forum has yet given me an explanation of what they mean by time which I can comprehend as useful. I suspect very strongly that you mean exactly the same thing I do but simply do not know how to express it.

Your inability to express it is evident by your inability to recognize the full consequences of my definition.

Have fun -- Dick

[brodix]

4newton,
When and where did Hawking describe this explanation of time?

I think it was Brief History of Time. He listed three. That one. One dealing with human perception and I don't remember the third. It might have been entropy.

Also are there other universes just behind us, maybe just micro seconds away?
I think one of our primary problems with appreciating the real depth and complexity of reality is the reductionistic assumption that space and distance are the same. Distance is to space what the mile markers on a road are to the entire experience of it, scenery, driving conditions etc. Analysis is useful, but it can be isolating, if not kept in perspective. Learning how to see the world whole takes more intellectual effort than examining objects. Our brains evolved as navigation tools, so we tend to study the path in front of us and judge the usefulness or danger of what we encounter. Trying to see it all is impossible, so that is why I find understanding the relationship between objects and processes so important.

This theory is not dependent on a closed universe, in fact it supports the open universe. All the energy of the universe will just continue outward at the speed of light until the energy differential is less than planck level and all action will cease. (There is no dark matter)

So I suppose it would be more accurate to say that your concept of time is based on C. (?)
The problem with this might be; What is it relative to? In a sense, it is like a clock with hands, but no face. It may be motion, but is it time?
Just as I've argued that space is the essence of the absolute, I think that an argument might be made that time is the essence of relativity. As you assume, it is a function of measuring motion, but as Relativity points out, at the speed of light, there is no time because the reference frame is moving at the same rate as that being measured, ie. both the hands and the face are spinning around together. Time, then, only exists when the reference frame is something other then what it is measuring, ie. what it is relative to.

[russ_watters]

Ok, I've been thinknig more about your second thought experiment, 4newton, and I think I figured out where you're going with it. To avoid you thinking I don't understand, I'll just finish it and you tell me if its right or wrong:

In your second thought experiment, you have 3 clocks moving at 3 different linear velocities through space. Your first prediction, based on SR, is that the fastest clock in linear speed has the slowest tick rate. Your second prediction is that if you decelerate the fastest clock to the linear velocity of the second fastest clock, its tick rate will speed up to match that of the second clock. Decelerate it to the linear velocity of the slowest clock, and its tick rate will speed up again to that of the slowest clock.

Now for the important prediction: if you decelerate the clock further, it will continue to speed up its tick rate. You predict that eventally, you will get to the point where the clock's tick rate won't speed up any more - it'll start slowing down again. The implication is that you have hit and passed the absolute state of rest and the clock is now traveling backwards from the direction it started in, in absolute space. You have therefore found the absolute rest frame.

Is this what you predict?

[Russell E. Rierson]

Hello again Dr. D :wink:

As you keep[correctly] repeating, in so many words, that each event in space-time has its own intrinsic measure of the "present moment" which is the separation of past and future, with the future as an uncertainty.

Why not represent the present moment of an arbitrary observer as the inward collapse of the "past" light-cone to the present moment and the outward expanse of the future light-cone into the uncertain future.

A 2-dimensional "cross-section" of the present moment, or proper time of an observer, p:


[<-[->[<-[p]->]<-]->]

Now it appears that the past moments are cumulative and are increasing in density? as a cumulative stacking of present moments. Since the laws of physics are time invariant, the uncertain future is beholden to the action principle :wink:

Here is an interesting derivation of general relativity:

http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/General_Relativity.htm

[brodix]

russ,

The implication is that you have hit and passed the absolute state of rest and the clock is now traveling backwards from the direction it started in, in absolute space. You have therefore found the absolute rest frame.

The observation seems to be that space is the absolute. Time is relative to its rate of motion relative to it.(?)

[JoeWade]

if the galaxy is moving at 371km/s through the universe and light moves at 300,000 km/s through our galaxy doesn't it stand to reason that light moves 300,371 to 299,629 through the universe?

just curious about what that would be like...

[4newton]

Ok, I've been thinking more about your second thought experiment, 4newton, and I think I figured out where you're going with it. To avoid you thinking I don't understand, I'll just finish it and you tell me if its right or wrong:You have stated it better then I did and you do have the right idea.

Now the question is how does SR handle this idea not just from the conclusions people have made about SR but from the math. Where does SR state that V0 may not be a real absolute zero?

If there is any disagreement with SR then I think it is important to have an experiment to test for spatial zero rest. That is where the real experiment I have developed comes into play.

[4newton]

The implication is that you have hit and passed the absolute state of rest and the clock is now traveling backwards from the direction it started in, in absolute space. You have therefore found the absolute rest frame.There was another post at the same time I was posting my last reply and I see this statement was not understood from the way you said it.

Acceleration or in this case deceleration is the way you move toward zero velocity after you reach zero velocity any change is acceleration and the clock doesn’t go backward into negative time the rate of the clock just starts to go slower still accumulating positive time.

I think this is what Russ was stating. This is the point of my thought experiment.

[Muddler]

Hi 4newton!
I have to admit that after several times of reading I still don't really understand what your (2nd) experiment would prove.
Still, I think there is already one simple yet fundamental problem (I might be wrong though):

Three identical clocks are placed at positions E, F, and G. All clocks are repetitive and synchronized so that all clocks repeat zero at the same time.

How would you make sure they repeat zero at the same time??
Put them all together, reset them and then move them to your described starting points?
If so, how can we be sure, they are still repeating zero at the same time, when these starting points are reached? Don't we have to apply relativistic considerations the moment we are moving them apart?
Sure, as soon as the points are reached and the clocks are stationary to each other, it is valid to assume, they are ticking at the same rate, but I am afraid that's not identical with them displaying the same time.

I might be confusing things here, so please correct me, but that was what occured to me when I read your description of the experiment...

[brodix]

4newton,

The implication is that you have hit and passed the absolute state of rest and the clock is now traveling backwards from the direction it started in, in absolute space. You have therefore found the absolute rest frame.

Acceleration or in this case deceleration is the way you move toward zero velocity after you reach zero velocity any change is acceleration and the clock doesn’t go backward into negative time the rate of the clock just starts to go slower still accumulating positive time.

I don't think russ was suggesting that you go into negative time, but that since you reached the point of rest, motion in the other direction results in time starting to slow again.

the clock doesn’t go backward into negative time the rate of the clock just starts to go slower still accumulating positive time.

What you are saying here is that it isn't acceleration which causes time to slow, but velocity and as you deccelerate to zero velocity, the rate of time does continue to increase. So what russ is saying is that if you deccelerate to zero velocity, time reaches its maximum rate, then when you start accelerating in the opposite direction, time starts to slow again. Which is what you are saying.

[brodix]

So while space is an absolute, any method of measuring it requires time, which is relative.

The problem is that we confuse distance with space. Distance is a specific dimension, but space doesn't come with a set of coordinates. As I have argued previously, any number of coordinates can define the same space, so space is infinitely dimensional. Geometry never incorporated the zero, as it begins with the point, which is the center of a specific coordinate system. This is an arbitrary set, so zero in geometry is empty space. Distance, as a dimension, isn't zero, therefore it's not an absolute and is relative to whatever factors are determining it. It is the measurement of distance which leads to the conclusion that space is relative.

[russ_watters]

You have stated it better then I did and you do have the right idea. Ok, so that is what you predict? Well, quite simply, it requires (assumes) that there is an absolute rest frame - a frame which if it existed would have been found with the M&M experiment. It requires a variable speed of light - something you haven't mentioned. There are a whole truckload of implications (predictions for the real experiments I mentioned) to the assumption of an absolute rest frame, and as stated in the presentation I linked: "There is no absolute reference frame."

The part where you are assuming it (even though you don't know it) is that you don't define the reference frames you are using ahead of time. To say one clock is moving faster than another, you have to say what it is moving with respect to: There is a 4th clock in a 4th reference frame in your thought experiment. This reference frame, you assume, is the absolute reference frame. It isn't. Its just as arbitrary as the arbitrary speeds you give to your moving clocks. When a clock stops moving in space and becomes stationary with respect to this arbitrary reference frame, then its stationary for the purpose of the thought experiment. Now the question is how does SR handle this idea not just from the conclusions people have made about SR but from the math. Where does SR state that V0 may not be a real absolute zero? The math follows the postulates. SR states that there is no absolute zero speed in the first postulate. If there is any disagreement with SR then I think it is important to have an experiment to test for spatial zero rest. And indeed there have been: SR exists largely because of these experiments and their failure to find the absolute frame.That is where the real experiment I have developed comes into play. Again, any of your experiments could be conducted in real life. Until they are, they are thought experiments. But not to worry, similar experiments have been conducted and based on these, we can predict the results of yours. Acceleration or in this case deceleration is the way you move toward zero velocity after you reach zero velocity any change is acceleration and the clock doesn’t go backward into negative time the rate of the clock just starts to go slower still accumulating positive time. That is correct (and brodix is correct) - that is what I was saying.

[russ_watters]

if the galaxy is moving at 371km/s through the universe and light moves at 300,000 km/s through our galaxy doesn't it stand to reason that light moves 300,371 to 299,629 through the universe?

just curious about what that would be like... You are correct. And thats an implication that 4newton hasn't mentioned. But the fact that that implication is not observed (the speed of light is constant to all observers) is an important piece of evidence that this universal frame does not exist.

[brodix]

russ,
if the galaxy is moving at 371km/s through the universe and light moves at 300,000 km/s through our galaxy doesn't it stand to reason that light moves 300,371 to 299,629 through the universe?

...the fact that that implication is not observed (the speed of light is constant to all observers) is an important piece of evidence that this universal frame does not exist.


An absolute isn't a reference frame, but an equilibrium.

It would seem that the speed of light being constant, irregardless of ones own velocity, does require a counterbalancing relationship, with increasing velocity corresponding to a decreasing measure of time.

[4newton]

Hi to you Muddler and all.
I have to admit that after several times of reading I still don't really understand what your (2nd) experiment would prove.
Still, I think there is already one simple yet fundamental problem (I might be wrong though): In the (2nd) experiment I am trying to establish that time dilation is bi-directional. That is if you move a clock from one frame moving at a velocity M to a frame that is moving at a higher velocity H your clock will tick slower. (Everyone seems to agree with this). If on the other hand you move a clock from H to a frame moving at a slower velocity M or even a slower moving frame L your clock will tick faster. (I seem to not be able to get a firm statement on this point.) You only have three choices, faster, no difference, or slower. Make you choice and tell why.
How would you make sure they repeat zero at the same time??
Put them all together, reset them and then move them to your described starting points? Yes
If so, how can we be sure, they are still repeating zero at the same time, when these starting points are reached? Don't we have to apply relativistic considerations the moment we are moving them apart? Yes, but clock F and G will move the same distance and may be tested by the fact that they accumulate the same amount of time, count, in the high speed counter from the high speed time base time base on each cycle of the pulse clock. Let me make clear that the high-speed time base, oscillator or what ever you would choose to produce a repetitive stable output has nothing to do with the pulse clock.
The rate of the pulse clock is not important. It is only necessary that the three pulse clocks are stable with regards to each other. The pulse clock and the high-speed time base should not be synchronized together to assure they do not lock on each other. If they lock together they will degrade the accumulated output of the counters resolution.

You may also synchronize the pulse clocks by using the pulse from the clock at E. You then check that the high-speed counters F and G agree or at least measure the ratio of their differences and use that to correct your test results. If you wish to have them agree all you need do is move counter G until it agree with counter F.

After this setup you are now ready to change the velocity of the frame and take you measurement.

[4newton]

Hi to Brodix.
What you are saying here is that it isn't acceleration which causes time to slow, but velocity and as you deccelerate to zero velocity, the rate of time does continue to increase. So what russ is saying is that if you deccelerate to zero velocity, time reaches its maximum rate, then when you start accelerating in the opposite direction, time starts to slow again. Which is what you are saying.Yes, can you believe that two or more people on here can agree on anything?

[4newton]

Hi again Brodix.
The problem is that we confuse distance with space. Distance is a specific dimension, but space doesn't come with a set of coordinates. As I have argued previously, any number of coordinates can define the same space, so space is infinitely dimensional. Geometry never incorporated the zero, as it begins with the point, which is the center of a specific coordinate system. This is an arbitrary set, so zero in geometry is empty space. Distance, as a dimension, isn't zero, therefore it's not an absolute and is relative to whatever factors are determining it. It is the measurement of distance which leads to the conclusion that space is relative. Yes, Space or any point in space is a zero order function and has no reference. Distance is a first order function and is relative to two points. Velocity is a second order function and is related to distance and time. Acceleration is a third order function and is related to distance, velocity, and time. You may go on to a change of acceleration then on and on.

The question is do we have a universal reference when we get to velocity. Is the universal reference time? My view is yes. I do not see anyone stating that we can not have a system without acceleration, why? The answer is that we can feel acceleration. Why then is not a system without velocity allowed? Both acceleration and velocity are dependent on the reference of time.

[4newton]

Hi russ_watters
Russ if you want me to learn something please try not to jump ahead of my basic question to you.
The question is do clocks slow down when they go from a slower velocity to a higher velocity and do they speed up when going from a higher velocity to a slower velocity.

[JoeWade]

i think the problem you will encounter with your thought experiment is there's no way to verify clocks running slower or faster at those speeds, to the person travelling AT that speed his clock looks normal. and he can't verify it against a clock in a "slower" frame without first slowing down himself and comparing the clocks side-by-side.

any discrepancies in time could be due to acceleration factors, which are not SR but GR :(

i dunno. hope you guys can work this one one out, it's pretty interesting

[russ_watters]

Hi russ_watters
Russ if you want me to learn something please try not to jump ahead of my basic question to you.
The question is do clocks slow down when they go from a slower velocity to a higher velocity and do they speed up when going from a higher velocity to a slower velocity. Ok...the answer to the question is yes.

[Nacho]

I've read with interest the discussion here on whether there is no absolute space (per Relativity), or if there could be an absolute space.

I've read an article that both sides of this should read. It is a refreshing and enlightening (to me at least) approach to absolutes VS relatives. It was written by Tsung-Dao Lee, co-winner of the 1957 Nobel prize for discovery of some symmetry laws being broken. I wish I could link to it, but I can't find a printing of it on the net that doesn't need a subscription. It is from his book Introduction to Field Theory.

Rather than talking about things like "space/time is definately relative, that is the way it is, and there absolutely cannot be anything else, Relativity demands it, it can't be any other way", he talks about them in terms of;

1) non-observables;
2) the corresponding symmetry transform; and
3) the conservation law or selection rule.

and he talks about the laws that were thought to be symmetrical and conserved the exact same way, and just says the symmetry breaking is an observable/has been observed. He makes no claim if symmetry will ever be broken for a particular group ... just that it is not observed.

[4newton]

Hi Russ:
Ok...the answer to the question is yes.
Thank you for putting up with me.
I think you know my next question but here it is.
Can you then go from higher velocity to a lower velocity without limit? Of course then the clock rate would increase without limit.

[brodix]

4newton,
Yes, Space or any point in space is a zero order function and has no reference. Distance is a first order function and is relative to two points. Velocity is a second order function and is related to distance and time. Acceleration is a third order function and is related to distance, velocity, and time. You may go on to a change of acceleration then on and on.

The question is do we have a universal reference when we get to velocity. Is the universal reference time? My view is yes. I do not see anyone stating that we can not have a system without acceleration, why? The answer is that we can feel acceleration. Why then is not a system without velocity allowed? Both acceleration and velocity are dependent on the reference of time.

Remember that C is the speed of light in a vacuum. So the vacuum is the reference for C. While any point in space is relative, space isn't an empty set, but an equilibrium state. As in what matter and anti-matter exist in. Space is the first order function.

Time is not first, or second order function. In space we have matter/energy in motion. This physicality doesn't come into existence, or go out of existence. Only the relative positions it occupies and the information so being recorded. So past and future doesn't apply to this second order matter and energy, only to the third order information it is recording.
We think of time as a first order function because there is nothing more thought provoking then our own mortality. As I've pointed out, the units of time that are our lives go from beginning to end, but the second order matter/energy(and possibly spiritual essence) of which the information that is our subjective lives consists, is continuously going on to the next units. Much like the sun that is draining from our evening is pouring into some one else's morning.
Time is dependant on its material reference frame. As matter is accelerated, the motion within its atomic structure slows down, so that the combination doesn't exceed C. Therefore its internal clock slows.

[4newton]

I've read an article that both sides of this should read. It is a refreshing and enlightening (to me at least) approach to absolutes VS relatives. It was written by Tsung-Dao Lee, co-winner of the 1957 Nobel prize for discovery of some symmetry laws being broken. I wish I could link to it, but I can't find a printing of it on the net that doesn't need a subscription. It is from his book Introduction to Field Theory.

I am always interested in different viewpoints to any problem. I will see if I can find the book. Thank you
I have found that most people take on an idea as a cause and try to make all things fit into one idea. This of course only limits your options and closes you mind to new ideas. Off hand I don’t see how symmetry fits into the idea of absolutes and relativity but I will try to find out his ideas on the subject

[4newton]

Hi brodix:
You misunderstood my statement on functions. I am talking about the math functions and their components under consideration.
I am sorry but I was unable to follow you thought in your posting. If you could break it down into smaller parts it would help me.

Remember that C is the speed of light in a vacuum. So the vacuum is the reference for C. While any point in space is relative, space isn't an empty set, but an equilibrium state. As in what matter and anti-matter exist in. Space is the first order function.

If you could define your concept of vacuum it would help.
How does vacuum work as a reference to the speed of light?
The speed of light is in meters per second and is reference to distance, spatial distance, per unit of time, seconds. Can you somehow tie that to the reference of a vacuum?
I can accept the idea of an all prevailing medium (APM). At one time it was defined to be the aeather. That concept of aeather was proved non-existent.

A new concept of aeather should be called aeatherII or eatherII. I don’t care which anyone uses and since I just made it up and claim rights to the name I give everyone the right to use either. I also claim rights to aeather++ and eather++, if you are into computing. All names may be used to define the All Prevailing Medium (APM)

What do you mean by Equilibrium State? Are you saying that there is an equal amount of matter and anti-matter in the same place at the same time in equilibrium?

[4newton]

i think the problem you will encounter with your thought experiment is there's no way to verify clocks running slower or faster at those speeds, to the person travelling AT that speed his clock looks normal. and he can't verify it against a clock in a "slower" frame without first slowing down himself and comparing the clocks side-by-side.any discrepancies in time could be due to acceleration factors, which are not SR but GR
i dunno. hope you guys can work this one one out, it's pretty interesting
I think we will work it out. Don’t worry about testing our final idea I think it is possible to come up with an experiment that will answer any unresolved questions.
Check my post 158. This is an experiment I am able to run myself. So far I have not seen any objections to the experiment. I would welcome some before I put the effort into the experiment. There may always be something I have over looked but like most things you don’t find them until you do the work.

[russ_watters]

I think you know my next question but here it is.
Can you then go from higher velocity to a lower velocity without limit? Of course then the clock rate would increase without limit. No, there is a limit.

[4newton]

Hi Russ
No, there is a limit.
We have now agreed as to the nature of a clock moving at different velocities and have agreed that the clock will tick at the fastest rate as it goes through zero velocity.
Now comes the hard part.
I agree with you that this will take place in any reference frame.
I think I may state at this point that our difference is the acceptance of an absolute zero reference frame as a possible valid reference frame.
From this experiment can you show any different performance from a clock that goes through absolute zero with any clock that goes through zero in any other reference frame?
If you answer is no then I hold that the same results can be proved, in the same manner, for all other physical functions in the spatial dimension.

[Chronos]

Hi Russ

We have now agreed as to the nature of a clock moving at different velocities and have agreed that the clock will tick at the fastest rate as it goes through zero velocity.Incorrect. The clock will tick at its slowest rate at zero [relative] velocity.
Now comes the hard part. I agree with you that this will take place in any reference frame. I think I may state at this point that our difference is the acceptance of an absolute zero reference frame as a possible valid reference frame.What part of 'no absolute reference frame' do you not understand?From this experiment can you show any different performance from a clock that goes through absolute zero with any clock that goes through zero in any other reference frame?No such 'clock' exits.If you answer is no then I hold that the same results can be proved, in the same manner, for all other physical functions in the spatial dimension.Alice is still in wonderland.

[russ_watters]

I agree with you that this will take place in any reference frame.
I think I may state at this point that our difference is the acceptance of an absolute zero reference frame as a possible valid reference frame. Yep. But its not just me: that's SR's first postulate and the conclusion of hundreds of experiments. From this experiment can you show any different performance from a clock that goes through absolute zero with any clock that goes through zero in any other reference frame? None whatsoever If you answer is no then I hold that the same results can be proved, in the same manner, for all other physical functions in the spatial dimension. Wait - no means that even if there were an absolute zero, you wouldn't be able to identify it because it doesn't affect your results.

The part you are missing here (again) is that you have arbitrarily defined a zero reference frame. Its the frame you are in. What you will find is that you are always in the stationary frame because you can never be in motion with respect to yourself!

In your second thought experiment, after the fastest clock (in linear speed) is slowed to the speed of the slowest clock, to say you can slow it down more, you need to say with respect to what. For the spatial velocities you have given each clock - you need to say with respect to what.

[russ_watters]

Incorrect. The clock will tick at its slowest rate at zero [relative] velocity. I think 4newton is getting you turned around: time dilation is clocks slowing down as their spatial velocity increases. Hence, speeding up as it decreases.

[brodix]

4newton,

If you could define your concept of vacuum it would help. How does vacuum work as a reference to the speed of light?

The vacuum is, quite literally, empty space. In other words, light passing through a transparent medium, such as glass, travels slower then C.

The speed of light is in meters per second and is reference to distance, spatial distance, per unit of time, seconds. Can you somehow tie that to the reference of a vacuum?

The assumption with relativity is that space only exists as a definition of the material in it. As this material travels relative to the forces affecting it, ie. gravitational collapse and spatial expansion, then it can only be thought of in terms of the curved trajectories of this matter and energy. This is what I mean when I say that the tendency is to confuse space with distance. An object travels across distance, which is only one dimension of space. It has been proven that all the curvature balances out and space is ultimately flat, so curvature one way only creates a tension the other way.

I can accept the idea of an all prevailing medium (APM). At one time it was defined to be the aeather. That concept of aeather was proved non-existent.

That was because the aether was thought of as a specific physical medium that was inherently static, but all physical properties are subject to relativistic effects.

What do you mean by Equilibrium State? Are you saying that there is an equal amount of matter and anti-matter in the same place at the same time in equilibrium?

I don't know the extent to which such opposites combine and cancel each other out. I tend to think of it more in the yin yang model, in which two opposites provide a larger balance. More in terms of an electromagnetic polarity.

russ,

[/quote] Wait - no means that even if there were an absolute zero, you wouldn't be able to identify it because it doesn't affect your results.

The part you are missing here (again) is that you have arbitrarily defined a zero reference frame. Its the frame you are in. What you will find is that you are always in the stationary frame because you can never be in motion with respect to yourself! [/quote]

Yes, but you are in motion relative to other observers.

You cannot reach the absolute state without becoming part of it, but then you cannot reach the speed of light without effectively becoming light, so physical impossibility shouldn't preclude theoretical validity.

[russ_watters]

Yes, but you are in motion relative to other observers.

You cannot reach the absolute state without becoming part of it, but then you cannot reach the speed of light without effectively becoming light, so physical impossibility shouldn't preclude theoretical validity. How does the fact that you are in motion relative to other observers in any way imply there is an absolute state of rest? To me (and Einstein, and the entire scientific community today), the fact that motion is always measured relative to an arbitary reference - and the laws of physics work just fine that way - implies that there is no absolute state of rest.

[brodix]

russ,

My point in that statement wasn't proof of an absolute frame, but that your reference frame is visibly relative. This statement;
The part you are missing here (again) is that you have arbitrarily defined a zero reference frame. Its the frame you are in. What you will find is that you are always in the stationary frame because you can never be in motion with respect to yourself!

Is similar to saying that the earth is arbitrarily the center of the universe, because you are on it. My reason for referring to it isn't because it is wrong, but because it supports my observation that all points are the center of their universe and only an arbitrary perspective creates order.

Now, let me repeat myself; I am not saying there is anything other then arbitrary frames of reference. I'm saying that there is an equilibrium amoung all motion and matter that is generally taken for granted by the scientific community.

I've raised several concepts that imply, not a absolute state of rest, but that there exists a fundamental equilibrium, whether it's the concept of matter and anti-matter, or that the universal forces of expansion and gravitational collapse balance out, with an ultimately flat universe.
I've yet to hear that "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." has been refuted.

[brodix]

To tie these points together, a reference frame is an arbitrary three dimensional coordinate system, any number of such may define the same space, so no, there is no universal reference frame, but empty space, undefined by any particular coordinate system, is the most effective description for the equilibrium that is generally taken for granted by science.

[4newton]

Hi Russ
Let us now go back and take a look at a reference frame moving with a velocity V1 in direction from A to B ( A ---> B ) you have agreed that if a clock H is moving faster then V1 in the direction AB that it will tick slower then a clock M moving at a velocity V1 and you have also agreed that if the clock H slows down to V1 it will tick faster until the point that its velocity is equal to the clock M moving at V1 then it will tick at the same rate as the clock at V1.
Are we still in agreement?

[russ_watters]

Are we still in agreement? Yes, 4newton.

[4newton]

Hi again Russ
Let us now go back and take a look at a reference frame moving with a velocity V1 in direction from A to B ( A ---> B ) you have agreed that if a clock H is moving faster then V1 in the direction AB that it will tick slower then a clock M moving at a velocity V1 and you have also agreed that if the clock H slows down to V1 it will tick faster until the point that its velocity is equal to the clock M moving at V1 then it will tick at the same rate as the clock at V1.If now the clock L is moving at a velocity of V1 and it moves in the direction BA the clock then increases the tick rate higher than the clock M moving at a velocity V1. You did agree that clocks that slow down in velocity increase their tick rate.
This is the same thing in the GPS system from the view of the satellite. The reference frame is that of the satellite.
I don’t think you are going to agree for some reason. Surprise me.