So we have problems with clocks measureing time ?

[brodix]

4Newton,

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

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

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

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

 

[4newton]

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

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

 

[4newton]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[4newton]

i think the problem you will encounter with your thought experiment is there's no way to verify clocks running slower or faster at those speeds, to the person traveling AT that speed his clock looks normal. and he can't verify it against a clock in a "slower" frame without first slowing down himself and comparing the clocks side-by-side.any discrepancies in time could be due to acceleration factors, which are not SR but GR
i dunno. hope you guys can work this one one out, it's pretty interesting

I think we will work it out. Don’t worry about testing our final idea I think it is possible to come up with an experiment that will answer any unresolved questions.
Check my post 158. This is an experiment I am able to run myself. So far I have not seen any objections to the experiment. I would welcome some before I put the effort into the experiment. There may always be something I have over looked but like most things you don’t find them until you do the work.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you know my next question but here it is.
Can you then go from higher velocity to a lower velocity without limit? Of course then the clock rate would increase without limit.

No, there is a limit.

 

[4newton]

Hi Russ

No, there is a limit.

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

 

[Chronos]

Hi Russ

We have now agreed as to the nature of a clock moving at different velocities and have agreed that the clock will tick at the fastest rate as it goes through zero velocity.

Incorrect. The clock will tick at its slowest rate at zero [relative] velocity.

Now comes the hard part. I agree with you that this will take place in any reference frame. I think I may state at this point that our difference is the acceptance of an absolute zero reference frame as a possible valid reference frame.

What part of 'no absolute reference frame' do you not understand?

From this experiment can you show any different performance from a clock that goes through absolute zero with any clock that goes through zero in any other reference frame?

No such 'clock' exits.

If you answer is no then I hold that the same results can be proved, in the same manner, for all other physical functions in the spatial dimension.

Alice is still in wonderland.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with you that this will take place in any reference frame.
I think I may state at this point that our difference is the acceptance of an absolute zero reference frame as a possible valid reference frame.

Yep. But its not just me: that's SR's first postulate and the conclusion of hundreds of experiments.

From this experiment can you show any different performance from a clock that goes through absolute zero with any clock that goes through zero in any other reference frame?

None whatsoever

If you answer is no then I hold that the same results can be proved, in the same manner, for all other physical functions in the spatial dimension.

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

Incorrect. The clock will tick at its slowest rate at zero [relative] velocity.

I think 4Newton is getting you turned around: time dilation is clocks slowing down as their spatial velocity increases. Hence, speeding up as it decreases.

 

[brodix]

4Newton,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

russ,

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

How does the fact that you are in motion relative to other observers in any way imply there is an absolute state of rest? To me (and Einstein, and the entire scientific community today), the fact that motion is always measured relative to an arbitary reference - and the laws of physics work just fine that way - implies that there is no absolute state of rest.

 

[brodix]

russ,

My point in that statement wasn't proof of an absolute frame, but that your reference frame is visibly relative. This statement;

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

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

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

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

 

[brodix]

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

 

[4newton]

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

 

[russ_watters]

Are we still in agreement?

Yes, 4Newton.

 

[4newton]

Hi again Russ

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

If now the clock L is moving at a velocity of V1 and it moves in the direction BA the clock then increases the tick rate higher than the clock M moving at a velocity V1. You did agree that clocks that slow down in velocity increase their tick rate.
This is the same thing in the GPS system from the view of the satellite. The reference frame is that of the satellite.
I don’t think you are going to agree for some reason. Surprise me.