A Thought Experiment

**Rut Roh** · Apr26-04, 03:33 PM

doctordick, may I please have your reasons for this statement ... :

"Antonio Lao, you are just totally off subject; sorry about that.

Have fun -- Dick"

because,,,, I thought it was very relevant and clearly stated.

~~Doctordick~~ · Apr26-04, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Oracleing

I would like to know just how you think mine or DrChinese’s post fogs the issue you seem unable to properly define.

I truly believe that you do not understand how your posts fog the issue and find that very sad. One problem I have is that I have no idea of the educational background of either of you; however, I find that both of you avoid any discussion of what I present as the central issue. The only conclusion I can conceive of is that either you do not have the background to discuss it or that you simply want to "flame" me because I bring up an issue you don't understand. Your overwhelming agenda seems to be to convince yourself that I belong in the crackpot camp in order to relieve yourself from thinking.

Originally Posted by Oracleing

… one of them is not the misunderstanding of clocks ideal or not measuring the passage of time.

Point taken, if there exists no possibility that you misunderstand ideal clocks or the issue of measuring the passage of time then your mind is closed to thinking about the problem of ideal clocks and the issue of measuring the passage of time. Admit it and go away.

Originally Posted by Oracleing

Would this subtle issue be, so subtle that only a great genius like you can see it?

Apparently! From my reading of the responses I have obtained, only Hurkyl seems to have even an inkling of what I am talking about and neither you nor DrChinese have even condescended to discuss my responses to his posts.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

How would Hurkyl propose to set up these "synchronized" atomic clocks if his kids kept tossing them around? That is a serious question believe it or not. When we get to fundamentals, even the smallest "tossing around" is significant. Since no clock, even our "ideal" clock, is disconnected from the universe, interactions exist which "toss it around".

Of course, you do not seem to understand the necessity for that array of synchronized array of clocks in an ideal relativistic coordinate system.

Nor have either of you made any indication that you understand the parametric representation of lines in a multiple dimension coordinate system.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

In Einstein's space-time continuum, entities can be seen as following paths called space-time lines. These lines can be specifically represented by parametric expressions such as: x= $LaTeX Code: f_x (\\alpha)$ , y= $LaTeX Code: f_y (\\alpha)$ , z= $LaTeX Code: f_z (\\alpha)$ and t= $LaTeX Code: f_t (\\alpha)$ .

The functions $LaTeX Code: f_i (\\alpha)$ can be any function convenient to the usage. What is important is that the value of the parameter $LaTeX Code: \\alpha$ fixes the value of all the coordinates necessary to specify a particular "event" on the specified space-time line.

If you can't follow such a line of thinking, then we are wasting our time. All I wanted to know was the level of your mathematical understanding so I could couch the presentation at a level you might understand.

Originally Posted by Oracleing

And what would this something interesting be?

For one thing, general relativity could almost be described as simple under this alternate perspective. Certainly no where near as complex as what is presented by the academy. For another, it totally removes any conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both issues take some serious understanding of mathematics.

Now, I know your immediate reaction to that – another crackpot who thinks he understands something no one else understands. Well, all I ask is a chance to present my perspective. And the first step in seeing that perspective is comprehending that there is a problem with the idea that "clocks measure time". If your mind is blocked to that issue (as is the entire physics community) then your mind is closed to what I have to say.

Originally Posted by Oracleing

If you really think "clocks do not measure time" or "time is not a measurable variable" show us why for example if my post about your idea is wrong, show why its wrong saying I’m using obfuscation… is no answer.

Hurkyl gave the correct answer to the question as to what clocks actually measure!

Originally Posted by Hurkyl

I would have said "proper time", but same thing.

Clocks, all clocks, actually directly measure "proper time", not time. We can only set up our classical relativistic coordinate system by making some very involved constraints on those clocks. These constraints are designed to assure the experimenter that their readings do indeed correspond to time. That constraint is actually very simple. Since what all clocks actually measure is proper time along their path (the integral of $LaTeX Code: \\,\\frac{-i}{c}\\sqrt{dx^2 +dy^2 +dz^2\\,-c^2 dt^2}$ along that path) we must make sure that the terms dx, dy, and dz vanish: i.e., the clock must be absolutely at rest in our proposed coordinate system.

I hope the above clarifies the issue for DrChinese also. I apologize for not answering your note directly.

If this is all over your head, I apologize.

Finally, to Rut Roh, I hope you understand why I found Antonio Lao's post to be off subject.

Have fun -- Dick

**Oracleing** · Apr26-04, 11:35 PM

I truly believe that you do not understand how your posts fog the issue and find that very sad.

Really I find it sad that you seem unable to explain how my very simple post avoids the issues that you are claiming are there.

One problem I have is that I have no idea of the educational background of either of you;

And how is that a problem?

however, I find that both of you avoid any discussion of what I present as the central issue.

Hey I went thought your so-called thought experiment, how is that avoiding the “central issue”.

But OK you tell me how exactly is the light clock I chose for your thought experiment which would give any observer the exact distance light would travel during the experiment, not providing any observer with a definite measure of the time the event took?

The only conclusion I can conceive of is that either you do not have the background to discuss it or that you simply want to "flame" me because I bring up an issue you don't understand.

And again if my post are incorrect, please point out where? Thinking that people are flaming you just because they disagree with you gives a deep insight into your mentality.

Your overwhelming agenda seems to be to convince yourself that I belong in the crackpot camp in order to relieve yourself from thinking.

If you don’t want to be in the “crackpot camp” don’t follow the crackpot ideal of assuming that people who don’t share your view are not thinking about your idea… or are unable to understand.

Point taken, if there exists no possibility that you misunderstand ideal clocks or the issue of measuring the passage of time then your mind is closed to thinking about the problem of ideal clocks and the issue of measuring the passage of time. Admit it and go away.

Do I detect a touch of sarcasm; maybe, you would be so kind as to tell me where my answer to your thought experiment is in error?

Apparently! From my reading of the responses I have obtained, only Hurkyl seems to have even an inkling of what I am talking about and neither you nor DrChinese have even condescended to discuss my responses to his posts.

What?? Are you talking about answers like “Misdirection of attention is the essence of magic; with it magicians can fool brilliant people for years, even when they know they are being fooled. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Einstein's method of synchronizing clocks except for the fact that it diverts attention from a serious issue which is ignored by everyone.” Which is not an answer to this question When you responded to my post about "coordinate time", did you mean to suggest there is something wrong with Einstein's method of synchronizing clocks in a reference frame, or is it that you simply not like the term "coordinate time" used to refer to the readings on the clocks?

Of course, you do not seem to understand the necessity for that array of synchronized array of clocks in an ideal relativistic coordinate system.

Nor have either of you made any indication that you understand the parametric representation of lines in a multiple dimension coordinate system.

Here’s a tip, if your relying on math to explain your thought experiment. What you have is a piss-poorly designed thought experiment.

If you can't follow such a line of thinking, then we are wasting our time. All I wanted to know was the level of your mathematical understanding so I could couch the presentation at a level you might understand.

Like I’ve already stated, if my thinking is wrong show me how?

For one thing, general relativity could almost be described as simple under this alternate perspective. Certainly no where near as complex as what is presented by the academy. For another, it totally removes any conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both issues take some serious understanding of mathematics.

Ho Humm…

Now, I know your immediate reaction to that – another crackpot who thinks he understands something no one else understands. Well, all I ask is a chance to present my perspective. And the first step in seeing that perspective is comprehending that there is a problem with the idea that "clocks measure time". If your mind is blocked to that issue (as is the entire physics community) then your mind is closed to what I have to say.

Yep my mind is blocked on this issue, at least until you tell me where I’m wrong.

Clocks, all clocks, actually directly measure "proper time", not time.

Oh I see now all clock don’t measure time, they measure your all new and improved “proper time”

dx, dy, and dz vanish: i.e., the clock must be absolutely at rest in our proposed coordinate system.

One wonders at the stupidity of starting a thread with a thrown clock, then posting that in your system all clocks have to be at rest.

Oracle

**Hurkyl** · Apr27-04, 12:28 AM

Simultaneity itself is a pre-relativistic notion of time! Simultaneity has no bearing on any physics experiment which can be performed (any experiment which can be performed can be seen as a collection of interactions between specific events). Simultaneity is no more then a convenient concept used to describe the universe in pre-relativistic terms.

And the notion is modified for the purposes of SR. It is a convenient term to denote that the coordinate time corresponding to two events is the same. Again, I'll point out that crackpots have a heck of a time grasping this point, but when discussing in the context of relativity, I can't say I've ever seen a physicist use "simultaneity" to refer to the pre-relativistic notion.

How would Hurkyl propose to set up these "synchronized" atomic clocks if his kids kept tossing them around? That is a serious question believe it or not. When we get to fundamentals, even the smallest "tossing around" is significant. Since no clock, even our "ideal" clock, is disconnected from the universe, interactions exist which "toss it around".

Theoretically, put bounds on the error. Practically, implement periodic resynchronization. (GPS, I belive, is a great example of this!)

I'm somewhat surprised you haven't brought up the "no clock theorem" since it represents a serious theoretical sticky point, instead of a mere semantic issue, but then again, discussions of its ramifications beyond "any clock will run backwards occasionally" are probably beyond most of the people here. (including myself)

They invariably fail to include the phrase "in the clocks rest frame". If they would always include that phrase, I would have no argument with their presentations at all.

Do you also insist that people say something like "Where '+' is the standard addition operator on the integers and '1' is the multiplicative identity" when people write expressions like "1+1"?

My problem is that, the moment I say, "clocks do not measure time" or "time is not a measurable variable", everybody just goes ballistic and the discussion is over.

To me (and I presume to some others), you appear to be merely arguing semantics. The short form of your point, as I currently understand it, is "Physicists don't explicitly state things like 'in the clock's rest frame', therefore they must not understand that this clause is needed," which, frankly, seems silly.

**Hurkyl** · Apr27-04, 07:29 AM

How would Hurkyl propose to set up these "synchronized" atomic clocks

And as another possibility, who cares about synchronization anyways? As long as things stay somewhat nicely arranged, they'll still measure a general relativistic coordinate chart.

**russ_watters** · Apr27-04, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Hurkyl

And as another possibility, who cares about synchronization anyways? As long as things stay somewhat nicely arranged, they'll still measure a general relativistic coordinate chart.

Interesting side-note: on US Navy ships, the chronographs are never reset (synchronized) unless the batteries are changed. Even then, its not that important to precisely set them. Its far better to let them run at whatever rate they run and record the variation from day to day - that way you know what the error rate is.

Whether dealing with SR or ship's chronographs, synchronization is best done on paper.

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.

**DrChinese** · Apr27-04, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Clocks, all clocks, actually directly measure "proper time", not time. We can only set up our classical relativistic coordinate system by making some very involved constraints on those clocks. These constraints are designed to assure the experimenter that their readings do indeed correspond to time. That constraint is actually very simple. Since what all clocks actually measure is proper time along their path (the integral of $LaTeX Code: \\frac{-i}{c}\\sqrt{dx^2 +dy^2 +dz^2- c^2 dt^2}$ along that path) we must make sure that the terms dx, dy, and dz vanish: i.e., the clock must be absolutely at rest in our proposed coordinate system.

No matter how we try, DrD remains in his ego trip. I will give one last try to see if we can get some substance...

Why bother with your constraint - i.e. that we minimize dx/dy/dz? This is a fairly severe constraint. Nice if you can have it, but in many cases not possible. That is in fact the entire purpose of relativity, as you should know - to resolve such differences in a manner which fits with experiment.

So how is the world different when your constraint is in place, and the terms are held to a minimum? Are we able to see a unification of gravity and electrodynamics? Anything like that? I am trying to understand the benefit of adopting your premise. Assuming that we agree that what is measured by a clock is "proper time" and not time itself. Honestly, I don't really see that statement as a stretch anyway.

~~Doctordick~~ · Apr27-04, 12:35 PM

Thank you Dr Chinese. I appreciate your effort.

Originally Posted by Oracleing

Here’s a tip, if you're relying on math to explain your thought experiment. What you have is a piss-poorly designed thought experiment.

No, I would say rather that your comment implies that you are not comfortable with mathematics. Let me quote Feynman, "mathematics is the distilled essence of logic."

Originally Posted by Oracleing

One wonders at the stupidity of starting a thread with a thrown clock, then posting that in your system all clocks have to be at rest.

Not if that issue is the central issue I want to talk about. I want to talk about something which in your head is stupid! Ok, if you don't want to talk about it, don't bother me.

Originally Posted by Hurkyl

To me (and I presume to some others), you appear to be merely arguing semantics. The short form of your point, as I currently understand it, is "Physicists don't explicitly state things like 'in the clock's rest frame', therefore they must not understand that this clause is needed," which, frankly, seems silly.

Forty years ago I also thought the need to point that out was silly; however, over the years I have come to realize that it is exactly the issue which has prevented the physics community from seeing what I see.

My single greatest complaint with web forums is that the members never expose their education level. That makes it very difficult to cast one's comments at a level the reader can understand. As above, Oracle has finally made it quite clear that he really isn't comfortable with analytical thought. Now you haven't made your range of comprehension clear yet but, as you are apparently the only one reading this thread who has any comprehension of the real issues of relativity, I will proceed as if you have the background to understand a difficult subject.

I hope you have your thinking cap on. Earlier, I brought up the subject of parametric representation of space time lines. Though you have not commented on that issue, your general comments imply you understand enough to follow a presentation based on such a representation. I hope that is a correct assessment.

Let us consider a relativisticly correct solution to a problem. Now this can be an experimentalist's describing the results of an actual experiment or a theorist's analytical result of a hypothetical situation. In any case, accurately expressing the solution requires specifying the coordinate system of the real or hypothetical observer (the coordinate system or frame of reference within which the results are to be expressed). Now, if a correct solution has been obtained, then that solution can be expressed as a set of space-time lines in the referenced coordinate system (a specific line for each specific significant element in the solution).

Now I need to point out that the problem referred to here can run the gamut from the trajectory of a macroscopic object through a collection of massive gravitational sources to a QED calculation of fundamental phenomena involving Feynman's inclusions of virtual particles and the consequences of their impact on results. Even if the number of elements included the solution of that problem run to numbers far beyond what we want to explicitly write down, from an analytical perspective, the solution can be expressed as a collection of space-time lines in that observer's coordinate system.

We are talking about expressing information here. The coordinate system we choose to use, in the final analysis, is nothing more or less than a reference system used to express that information. So, in deference to modern physics, let us use the space-time continuum introduced by Einstein: the coordinates will be x,y,z and t. The signature of the coordinate system will be taken to be three real coordinates and one imaginary coordinate. Depending on the problem being solved, the coordinate system can either be a standard Minkowski space or, if general relativity is involved, the Riemann generalization of that space.

If that is the case, then the solution of the problem (and it doesn't make any difference what the problem is) can be explicitly displayed by a set of parametric representations of the space-time lines of the elements significant to that solution.

$LaTeX Code: x_1 = f_{x_1} (\\alpha_1)$ , $LaTeX Code: y_1 = f_{y_1} (\\alpha_1)$ , $LaTeX Code: z_1 = f_{z_1} (\\alpha_1)$ and $LaTeX Code: t_1 = f_{t_1} (\\alpha_1)$ --- entity #1
$LaTeX Code: x_2 = f_{x_2} (\\alpha_2)$ , $LaTeX Code: y_2 = f_{y_2} (\\alpha_2)$ , $LaTeX Code: z_2 = f_{z_2} (\\alpha_2)$ and $LaTeX Code: t_2 = f_{t_2} (\\alpha_2)$ --- entity #2
$LaTeX Code: x_3 = f_{x_3} (\\alpha_3)$ , $LaTeX Code: y_3 = f_{y_3} (\\alpha_3)$ , $LaTeX Code: z_3 = f_{z_3} (\\alpha_3)$ and $LaTeX Code: t_3 = f_{t_3} (\\alpha_3)$ --- entity #3
…
$LaTeX Code: x_n = f_{x_n} (\\alpha_n)$ , $LaTeX Code: y_n = f_{y_n} (\\alpha_n)$ , $LaTeX Code: z_n = f_{z_n} (\\alpha_n)$ and $LaTeX Code: t_n = f_{t_n} (\\alpha_n)$ --- entity #n
…

Now I presume, you will concede that all relativisticly correct answers to any physics problem could be so expressed. That is, all the information contained in the solution to the problem is contained in the set of parametric expressions above which clearly express the space-time lines in the relevant "approved" coordinate system applicable to the associated problem.

{I have cut this into two parts as apparently the forum will not allow excessively long posts -- read on below}

~~Doctordick~~ · Apr27-04, 12:41 PM

I seem to be having trouble with one of my latex expressions. I keep getting a fault on the post. I will post the rest of the note as soon as I can find the problem.

Sorry about that -- Dick

~~Doctordick~~ · Apr27-04, 01:14 PM

Now, here is where we get inventive. Let us, in our heads, attach an ideal clock to each and every entity associated with the solution above. Let us not worry at all about synchronizing these clocks (I would suggest that the concept of synchronization in this situation is rather meaningless) as the only significant issue is the rate at which these clocks run in the observer's coordinate system.

Let us establish the zero on the ith clock via an arbitrary reference to a value of $LaTeX Code: \\alpha_i$ used in the parametric expressions above. Then, the readings on all the clocks are explicitly specified. They can be explicitly expressed by the parametric expression $LaTeX Code: \\tau_i\\, =\\, f_{\\tau_i} (\\alpha_i)$ where $LaTeX Code: f_{\\tau_i} (\\alpha_i)$ is given by the definite integral of $LaTeX Code: \\{ \\frac{-i}{c} \\sqrt{dx_i ^2 +dy_i ^2 +dz_i ^2 -c^2 dt_i ^2} \\}$ integrated from that arbitrary reference value of $LaTeX Code: \\alpha_i$ established above to the specific value of $LaTeX Code: \\alpha_i$ of interest.

Thus it is that we can add another specific variable to the set x, y, z, and t given above. For every specific value of $LaTeX Code: \\alpha_i$ , not only does our representation yield specific values for $LaTeX Code: x_i ,\\, y_i ,\\, z_i$ and

, it also yields (by construction) a specific value for $LaTeX Code: \\tau_i$ .

There is but one more step to set this thing up for analysis. In order for the entities presumed to be significant in the solution of this problem to actually be necessary to the solution, there must exist interactions between those various entities. The correct solution must include specification of the event specific to each and every significant interaction (that is in fact the fundamental difficulty in doing the integrals associated with Feynman's expansion of the virtual particle interactions in QED).

These interactions are "events": i.e., they are specified in the parametric representation above by naming the two entities of interest (entity j and entity k for example) and then specifying the value of $LaTeX Code: \\alpha_j$ and $LaTeX Code: \\alpha_k$ which denote the specific event of interest. It is the existence of these events which allow us to relate the reading on any given clock to the reading on any other clock in a specific way: i.e., the time of the interaction as seen from the two different entities is a significant factor.

What one must realize is that the coordinate system used to display this information is actually a rather arbitrary construct. We have, in the above description, five variables associated with every value of $LaTeX Code: \\alpha_i$ . Four of these are coordinates of the observer's coordinate system and the fifth constitutes the reading on a specific ideal clock. The relationship between the change in the reading on the clock and the change in the coordinate positions in the reference frame is set by the metric of the coordinate system; that is to say, ideal clocks "always" measure "proper time". Another way to express the same thing is to understand that there is an absolute physical relationship internal to the five variables under discussion.

At this point I ask you to make a subtle shift in your perspective. What we are talking about here is any arbitrary relativisticly correct solution to some physics problem. All of the information pertinent to the solution is contained in the parametric expressions discussed and the interaction information (the significant event specification). The actual coordinate system serves no purpose beyond allowing the observer to conceptualize the meaning of the coordinate variables and visualize these parametric lines as trajectories in a space he finds familiar.

Let me instead put forth an alternate coordinate system consisting of a different collection of four variables. I will choose to display the information in a coordinate system consisting of the values of x, y, z and $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ . In order to maintain the absolute physical relationship internal to the five variables under discussion, it is necessary to relate changes in the fifth variable to changes in the four I have chosen as coordinates in my representation. The relationship which is to be maintained must be exactly the same relationship imbedded in the original representation: i.e., $LaTeX Code: d \\tau_i = \\{ \\frac{-i}{c} \\sqrt{dx_i ^2 + dy_i ^2 + dz_i ^2 -c^2 dt_i ^2} \\}$ or, simply rearranging terms, $LaTeX Code: cdt = \\sqrt{dx_i ^2 + dy_i ^2 + dz_i ^2 + c^2 d \\tau_i ^2} \\}$ .

This suggests a very interesting geometrical relationship between the five variables. In the original geometry, $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ was a measure of length along lines in the geometry (Einstein's "invariant interval", or at least a time-like representation of it). If our intention is to use a geometry, the interpretation of which will maintain that absolute physical relationship between the five variables, then it behooves us to set the relation as the metric of the geometry. I personally find it quite surprising that such a move suggests that the pertinent geometry is Euclidian.

Why is that surprising? Well, we are talking about a relativisticly correct description of an arbitrary physics problem (note that the correctness of the solution includes general relativity). To come to the conclusion that the solution to that problem is easily represented in a Euclidian geometry is counter to every presentation of relativity I have ever seen. We need to examine this geometry very carefully.

{The final part will appear presently!}

~~Doctordick~~ · Apr27-04, 01:20 PM

The geometry has some strange aspects. Since the purpose of the geometry is supposed to allow the observer to conceptualize the meaning of the coordinate variables and visualize the parametric lines as trajectories in a space he finds familiar, we must make sure we understand exactly what interpretation we are to put on this representation. Remember, there has been no change whatsoever in the information being represented; it is no more than a different representation of exactly the same information represented in the original solution.

A straight forward interpretation would seem to be to let x,y and z be the standard coordinate axes we are used to and let t be exactly what we ordinarily interpret as time. Up to here that would certainly be consistent with the interpretation in the original presentation. The problem with that straight forward interpretation is that it leads to some seemingly unreasonable conclusions.

First, cdt is a differential measure along the paths of our entities. This would imply that everything in the universe proceeds along its trajectory at the speed of light. This is bothersome because our mental image of the universe generally has things moving at velocities considerably less than c.

Secondly, $LaTeX Code: c\\tau$ would be a real axis, as real as x, y or z and this geometry is thus a four dimensional Euclidian geometry. Again, this is bothersome because our mental image of the universe is three dimensional; how can there be a fourth axis of which we are unaware.

Once again, I assert that there can be nothing wrong with the representation, only with our interpretation as the information expressed is exactly the correct solution to the relevant problem discussed at the beginning. What must be in error is our interpretation of the representation. Let me put forth an interpretation which clarifies the problem.

Suppose the universe here represented is exactly a conventional four dimensional Euclidian universe where everything moves at exactly c. Suppose further that every entity of interest to us is momentum quantized in the $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ direction. Exactly what are the consequences of such a hypothesis? The consequence is actually rather straight forward: if the momentum in the $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ direction is quantized (the uncertainty in $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ momentum is zero), then the uncertainty in $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ must be infinite.

A little algebra concerning the momentum vector and the definition of that $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ axis leads immediately to the fact that momentum in the $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ direction has to be mass. It follows directly that, as all our experiments are done in laboratories constructed of mass quantized entities with tools consisting of mass quantized equipment, we cannot possibly detect motion in the $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ direction. An analysis of the character of the spatial wave functions will yield the conclusion that only motion perpendicular to $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ is detectable.

It is then quite clear that most things will appear to be moving at velocities less than c as only the component of their motion perpendicular to $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ is detectable. This also solves another difficulty in interpretation which I have not yet mentioned. Remember that $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ was the reading on that ideal clock attached to our entities.

Now I am sure you are all familiar with what is usually called the twin paradox. One twin goes off to some star and returns. When he gets back, his clock does not agree with his twin's clock. The problem here is that, if this is a conventional Euclidian coordinate system, interactions should occur whenever two entities exist at the same specific point in the coordinate system. Since one of the coordinates is the reading on the clock, when they interact, the reading should be the same. Well, quantum mechanics clears that issue off the table immediately as they both consist of mass quantized constructs and their $LaTeX Code: \\tau$ position is completely unknowable.

All it takes is a little serious effort to translate any real experiment into this representation. Once the translation is correctly accomplished, the results of any experiment are exactly what is observed which is as it must be because I have laid out exactly how the two different representations are related to one another.

There is a second interesting result. The identity between inertial mass and gravitational mass has always implied gravity was a geometric effect (I hope the readers are sufficiently educated to understand that comment). From Newton's time, it was held as very probable that gravity existed because we were not using a valid "inertial" coordinate system. For many years, mathematicians searched for the geometry which would achieve that result with consistent failure (if you look into the history of Hamiltonian mechanics, you will find that its roots lie in that effort). Eventually, a man named Maurpertuis proved that no such geometry existed (but thankfully, the work on the mathematical relations went on or we wouldn't have quantum mechanics).

One of Einstein's great break-throughs was his demonstration that Maurpertuis was wrong. There did indeed exist a geometry which would make gravity a geometric effect; that geometry is central to his theory of general relativity. It is always presented as if Einstein's success was a consequence of Maupertuis' failure to consider geometries with imaginary axes. But, if you go back to Maupertuis' proof, you will discover that a key point in that proof revolves around the fact that different objects can have different velocities. Note that if everything moves at the velocity c (as they do in the representation above) then his proof does not apply.

Actually, it is not difficult at all to generate a distortion in the geometry I have presented which makes gravity a geometric effect. What is nice about my approach is that quantum mechanics applies at every stage.

Now if you can follow that then you clearly have a mind open to new ideas and, most probably an education sufficient to think it out for yourself.

Have fun -- Dick

**Oracleing** · Apr27-04, 04:44 PM

No, I would say rather that your comment implies that you are not comfortable with mathematics. Let me quote Feynman, "mathematics is the distilled essence of logic."

Tell you what if you every make a claim that I do not agree with that I need mathematics to prove you incorrect eat my own keyboard.

Not if that issue is the central issue I want to talk about. I want to talk about something which in your head is stupid! Ok, if you don't want to talk about it, don't bother me.

Sorry I don’t think that’s the way forums work, but then that’s not such a surprise, I would thought someone who starts a thread called “A Thought Experiment” in a forum called Theory Development” may have actually thought about their posts.
.

My single greatest complaint with web forums is that the members never expose their education level.

You know you’ve actually helped me understand something, I’ve been to many forums where you get people promoting their own crackpot ideas, but I’ve never really understood when they start making claims about the elitist education establishment not accepting their radically new ideas…. I understand now, people like you.

That makes it very difficult to cast one's comments at a level the reader can understand. As above, Oracle has finally made it quite clear that he really isn't comfortable with analytical thought.

? You design a thought experiment…. With a claim like “What is important here is that the reading on the clock has absolutely nothing to do with the "time" used in the description of the experiment in anyone's frame of reference!”

I point out that if you use a light clock, it certainly does have some thing to do with the "time" used in the description of the experiment in anyone's frame of reference.

But I’m not comfortable with analytical thought

I will not bore you with having to read another long post with questions you fail to answer…. This bit of your multi-post says it all.

Now I am sure you are all familiar with what is usually called the twin paradox. One twin goes off to some star and returns. When he gets back, his clock does not agree with his twin's clock. The problem here is that, if this is a conventional Euclidian coordinate system, interactions should occur whenever two entities exist at the same specific point in the coordinate system. Since one of the coordinates is the reading on the clock, when they interact, the reading should be the same. Well, quantum mechanics clears that issue off the table immediately as they both consist of mass quantized constructs and their position is completely unknowable.

Are you telling me that one of the benefits of your system is, the answer to the twins paradox difference in time, is “completely unknowable”

BTW you do know the clocks should not agree, don’t you?

Oracle

**DrChinese** · Apr27-04, 04:44 PM

Ok, the first pieces look pretty good. I will continue to study.

**Hurkyl** · Apr27-04, 06:34 PM

So to summarize up until the "final bit", your program is to, in a particular reference frame, take the worldlines of all of the entities in interest, and then replot them by replacing the coordinate time parameter with the proper time parameter, and note that the coordinate time of the original reference frame can be recovered as Euclidean arclength in this new representation.

Right?

My single greatest complaint with web forums is that the members never expose their education level.

It's generally more trouble than it's worth. Say that you're a PhD and you get accused of being part of the brainwashed orthodoxy. Say that you're a layman, and you get summarily dismissed as being incapable of understanding anything.

**Rut Roh** · Apr27-04, 08:44 PM

Quote by Doctordick: Finally, to Rut Roh, I hope you understand why I found Antonio Lao's post to be off subject.

I came to accept the fact that I am not a mind reader a long time ago. That defect means I tend to ask questions. I have my theory on why you tossed out Antonio Lao's post, I was asking yours.

Quote fro Hurkyl: Say that you're a layman, and you get summarily dismissed as being incapable of understanding anything.

I agree 100% with this. Some people leave their personal info blank and up to questioning minds. Some fill those blanks with crap to fend off pre-fabricated ideals. I prefer to look at the posts and respond or not respond on that only.

BTW DoctorDick: If you really knew who I was, you would **** your pants.

~~Doctordick~~ · Apr27-04, 10:13 PM

Hi Hurkyl,

Originally Posted by Hurkyl

So to summarize up until the "final bit", your program is to, in a particular reference frame, take the worldlines of all of the entities in interest, and then replot them by replacing the coordinate time parameter with the proper time parameter, and note that the coordinate time of the original reference frame can be recovered as Euclidean arclength in this new representation.

Right?

Absolutly correct!

Originally Posted by Hurkyl

It's generally more trouble than it's worth. Say that you're a PhD and you get accused of being part of the brainwashed orthodoxy. Say that you're a layman, and you get summarily dismissed as being incapable of understanding anything.

More trouble to who?

Originally Posted by Rut Roh

I have my theory on why you tossed out Antonio Lao's post, I was asking yours.

I had to go back and re-read it as I did not remember what he said. Now that I have looked at it, I feel it was emotional clap trap loaded with physics nuances. Nothing that he said had any bearing on the discussion here.

Originally Posted by Rut Roh

Some fill those blanks with crap to fend off pre-fabricated ideals. I prefer to look at the posts and respond or not respond on that only.

You're right, I agree with you that a lot of what is posted is out and out bull; but a decently run forum could eliminate that by sectioning it out properly. The forum owners could certainly require a decent registration. I suppose you must like being in the dark.

Originally Posted by Rut Roh

BTW DoctorDick: If you really knew who I was, you would **** your pants.

Well you seem to have a high opinion of your status! If I had any interest in such things, I would not have lived the life I have lived. If you have to resort to those kinds of comments, you must have an extremely poor self image.

I have a sign over my desk which says "Knowledge is Power" in large letters and below it in small letters it says "the most popular abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity". I have a suspicion it applies directly to you.

DrChinese; I appreciate your response immensely!

Have fun -- Dick