Einstein said: NO Absolute Rest

[Macro]

This to me means that everything is moving *through space*
in some form or another.

If we can calculate a slowest object it would be like finding a
fastest time. Einstein dared not say it.

If moving through space is what slows time then time can be both absolute and relative. The Fastest time is absolute and moving though space slows it down in a relative.

Relatives owe there existence to the absolutes.

Hope you like this! :tongue:

 

[Janus]

This to me means that everything is moving *through space*
in some form or another.
If we can calculate a slowest object it would be like finding a
fastest time. Einstein dared not say it.
If moving through space is what slows time then time can be both absolute and relative. The Fastest time is absolute and moving though space slows it down in a relative.
Relatives owe there existence to the absolutes.
Hope you like this! :tongue:

What Einstein meant was that there is no preferred frame by which to judge absolute rest, or absolute motion. Your notion of a "slowest object" violates that as it requires such a preferred frame to which that motion is judged. What you think it means is wrong.

 

[pervect]

This to me means that everything is moving *through space*
in some form or another.
If we can calculate a slowest object it would be like finding a
fastest time. Einstein dared not say it.
If moving through space is what slows time then time can be both absolute and relative. The Fastest time is absolute and moving though space slows it down in a relative.
Relatives owe there existence to the absolutes.
Hope you like this! :tongue:

It's very hard to follow your line of thought, parts of which are backwards anyway.

Between any two specific events (points in space-time), there is always a timelike path connecting them which has the longest proper time.

This path will always be a geodesic.

There is no path of shortest proper time, by traveling a circuitous route at very high velocities, one can make the proper time as short as desired. It is the direct path, moving as slowly as possible, which maximizes proper time.

In special relativity only, the length of this path (the path of longest time) is a geometric invariant, the Lorentz interval between the two events. The Lorentz interval is invariant in SR, which means it is the same for all observers.

 

[Macro]

What Einstein meant was that there is no preferred frame by which to judge absolute rest, or absolute motion. Your notion of a "slowest object" violates that as it requires such a preferred frame to which that motion is judged. What you think it means is wrong.

You think I am wrong?
Then prove that everything is not moving through space in some way Janus! :!)

 

[SpaceTiger]

This to me means that everything is moving *through space*
in some form or another.
If we can calculate a slowest object it would be like finding a
fastest time.

This issue was already discussed https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98068". It's basically an extension on what Janus said.

 

[JesseM]

You think I am wrong?
Then prove that everything is not moving through space in some way Janus! :!)

Can you think of any experiment that would determine which of two objects is moving more quickly "through space"? If not, then your ideas are philosophy, not science. From a philosophical point of view, I suppose it's possible that there is such a thing as absolute rest and absolute motion but they have no physical consequences whatsoever.

 

[Janus]

You think I am wrong?
Then prove that everything is not moving through space in some way Janus! :!)

The burden of proof is not on me.
But,
It's evidenced everyday in high energy particle labs around the world.

 

[aaroman]

Probably this is the truth:

What Einstein meant was that there is no preferred frame by which to judge absolute rest, or absolute motion.

But for another meaning of the word 'rest': there is an incertitude principle that tells that no matter how hard you look at things, you won't find one with a momentum exactly zero, hence all objects do move. I believe that even if you could freeze an object to absolute zero, there still will be quantum fluctuations, so no object is staying still.

 

[russ_watters]

You think I am wrong?
Then prove that everything is not moving through space in some way Janus! :!)

No need to prove it - I'll just define it that way! You can find your "slowest object" and then I'll simply define a coordinate system that shows that object at rest. Simple!

 

[pervect]

No need to prove it - I'll just define it that way! You can find your "slowest object" and then I'll simply define a coordinate system that shows that object at rest. Simple!

Note that in SR only, the object that russ_watters has just specified, the one that is apparently at rest, will be the object that follows a "timelike geodesic" that connects two points in space-time with the longest proper time.

Imagine a clock on the object that russ_watters has just specified, which we will call the "stationary twin". Imagine another clock that accelerates, leaves the "stationary twin", turns around, and comes back, which we will call the "accelerating twin".

In SR only, the stationary twin will always have the longest elapsed time on his clock, his clock will always read longer than the clock of the accelerating twin.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

wouldn't the fastest time in the universe be the place where gravitational energy is the least?

 

[Macro]

Can you think of any experiment that would determine which of two objects is moving more quickly "through space"? If not, then your ideas are philosophy, not science. From a philosophical point of view, I suppose it's possible that there is such a thing as absolute rest and absolute motion but they have no physical consequences whatsoever.

The one that is moving more rapidly through space will have a slower clock! :!)

 

[Macro]

wouldn't the fastest time in the universe be the place where gravitational energy is the least?

Yes. This is my point jonny.

 

[JesseM]

The one that is moving more rapidly through space will have a slower clock! :!)

That won't work if the two clocks are moving apart at constant velocity, because different frames will disagree about which one is ticking slower. The only "objective", frame-independent way to compare them is to have one turn around so they can meet up again at a single location, but in that case you will simply find that whichever one you turned around is the one that elapsed less time. So how do I know which clock was ticking slower before either of them turned around?

Say I have two clocks A and A' on earth, and two clocks B and B' flying away from the Earth on twin rockets moving alongide each other at constant velocity. After the two sets of clocks have been moving apart for a while, I put A' on a rocket which accelerates in the direction of the B clock, and meanwhile the rocket that B' is riding accelerates in the direction of earth. After some time, B' reunites with A on earth, and we see that B' has elapsed less time since they departed. Also after some time, A' catches up with B in space, and we see that A' has elapsed less time since they departed. So in this case, before either A' or B' accelerated, which set of clocks do you think was ticking slower, A and A' sitting next to each other on Earth or B and B' sitting next to each other in twin rockets in space?

(by the way, why do you always put the smiley-with-hearts-in-its-eyes after your comments? Are you in love?)

 

[pmb_phy]

Einstein said: NO Absolute Rest

This means that there is no preferred inertial frame of reference so that no inertial observer could detect his state of motion. Only motion relative to something has any meaning. It means nothing more and nothing less that that.

Pete

 

[Macro]

That won't work if the two clocks are moving apart at constant velocity, because different frames will disagree about which one is ticking slower. The only "objective", frame-independent way to compare them is to have one turn around so they can meet up again

It is simple. There is a doppler effect in moving away. And there is a transverse doppler effect that doesn't depend on direction. Only one is a real clock slowdown the other is only an appearence. The other aint Jesse.

Try Again Jesse! :!)

 

[JesseM]

It is simple. There is a doppler effect in moving away. And there is a transverse doppler effect that doesn't depend on direction. Only one is a real clock slowdown the other is only an appearence. The other aint Jesse.
Try Again Jesse! :!)

No, you are misunderstanding the "transverse doppler effect", which certainly does depend on direction--see the explanation http://www.kineticbooks.com/physics/trialpse/41_Special%20Relativity/21/sp.html , and note that the equation they give depends on both the velocity and the angle of the object's path relative to the direction of the signal. If two observers are moving apart, at constant velocity, their view of each other will always be completely symmetrical, including how each one sees the other's clocks slowed down or sped up. Would you like me to calculate a numerical example to demonstrate this?

 

[JesseM]

You've learned by rote Jesse.
You aint got NO understanding!

I understand the consequences of relativity just fine, and the "transverse doppler effect" is part of relativity, unless you're talking about a new version of the transverse doppler effect that works differently than the one in relativity. If you're not just here to troll, please answer my question yes or no--do you deny that the relativistic version of the transverse doppler effect means that two observers moving at constant velocity relative to each other will have a completely symmetrical view of how each other's clocks slow down/speed up?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Macro,
The transverse doppler effect is dependant on direction. Suppose I fly circles around you at relavitistic speeds so as to stay a constant distace from you (you're at the center of the circle). You would see a red shift of the light from my spaceship due to time dilation. There is no doppler effect caused by moving toward or away from you in this situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_Doppler_effect

 

[Son Goku]

Yes. This is my point jonny.

That doesn't necessarily make it the place with the fastest time, or make it's time the absolute a priori measurement of time, which is then altered by the presence of mass.

Let us take the point in the universe which has the least gravitational energy to be a point which has no gravitational energy.
With no gravitation, it is basically flat space or Minkowski space.
So it is purely special relativistic and in a special relativistic environment time is not absolute but relative between observers.

By getting rid of gravity all you've done is allowed us to just discuss special relativity.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

That doesn't necessarily make it the place with the fastest time, or make it's time the absolute a priori measurement of time, which is then altered by the presence of mass.

yes, that's a good point. I would never suggest using that measure of time as an absolute measurement. There really is no benefit of using it anyway. If anything, we could make a theoretical speed of time, and meter stick that is invariant of space-time curvature so that we can measure the amount of time dilation and contraction at every point in space-time. I think that's already been done with the curvature tensors though.

 

[Macro]

Macro,
The transverse doppler effect is dependant on direction. Suppose I fly circles around you at relavitistic speeds so as to stay a constant distace from you (you're at the center of the circle). You would see a red shift of the light from my spaceship due to time dilation. There is no doppler effect caused by moving toward or away from you in this situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_Doppler_effect

You are just as confused as jesse jonny. The doppler effect and the transverse are not at all the same. Only one is a real slowdown of a clock. Only the clock that is moving rapidly through space is really running slower.

First you say that time slowdown is dependant on direction and then you give an example of no relative motion at all slowing time. Which way is going to be?

I'll tell you: speeding up changes space and time.

 

[curlinpw]

my 2 cents worth : a 1 inch equation ?

+ = -
time is the constant, in the theory of everything.
it cannot be twisted, bent, altered, decreased or increased.
no matter where you are, time is the same.
no matter what speed you achieve, time is the same.
time has no location, beginning, end, no middle,
no physical characteristics whatsoever, yet it exists.
time, in human terms, is measured by mechanical devices, prone to affects of gravity and energy.
gravity and energy are in equal amounts in the universe.
the location of each is dependant on time.
they ebb and flow in a neverending circuit.
gravity overtaking energy, energy escaping gravity.
life as we know it, can be reduced to energy escaping gravity. death as we know it, simplified, is gravity capturing energy. all thoughts, perception, knowledge, values, emotions, are some of what we define as life, a constant flow of energy, escaping gravity for an immeasuable period of time.

 

[JesseM]

You are just as confused as jesse jonny. The doppler effect and the transverse are not at all the same. Only one is a real slowdown of a clock. Only the clock that is moving rapidly through space is really running slower.

First you say that time slowdown is dependant on direction and then you give an example of no relative motion at all slowing time. Which way is going to be?

I'll tell you: speeding up changes space and time.

Macro, can you answer the simple question I asked you earlier?

If you're not just here to troll, please answer my question yes or no--do you deny that the relativistic version of the transverse doppler effect means that two observers moving at constant velocity relative to each other will have a completely symmetrical view of how each other's clocks slow down/speed up?

 

[ahrkron]

Macro, you have it wrong.

One of the only two postulates of (special) relativity is that there is no way to distinguish between two inertial frames. Since this is the starting point of SR, all consequences of the theory (including transverse doppler effect) will inherit that. There is no such a thing as "moving slower through space". That simply cannot be measured, or inferred from any experiment.