So we have problems with clocks measureing time ?

[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...

 

[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...

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 dilation 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 let's 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]

Real time

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.

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:

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]

http://caos.creol.ucf.edu/seminars/Measurement,%20Relativity,%20Einstein%20and%20Everything%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 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]

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?