So we have problems with clocks measureing time ?

[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.