So we have problems with clocks measureing time ?

[russ_watters]

Ok, I've been thinknig more about your second thought experiment, 4Newton, and I think I figured out where you're going with it. To avoid you thinking I don't understand, I'll just finish it and you tell me if its right or wrong:

In your second thought experiment, you have 3 clocks moving at 3 different linear velocities through space. Your first prediction, based on SR, is that the fastest clock in linear speed has the slowest tick rate. Your second prediction is that if you decelerate the fastest clock to the linear velocity of the second fastest clock, its tick rate will speed up to match that of the second clock. Decelerate it to the linear velocity of the slowest clock, and its tick rate will speed up again to that of the slowest clock.

Now for the important prediction: if you decelerate the clock further, it will continue to speed up its tick rate. You predict that eventally, you will get to the point where the clock's tick rate won't speed up any more - it'll start slowing down again. The implication is that you have hit and passed the absolute state of rest and the clock is now traveling backwards from the direction it started in, in absolute space. You have therefore found the absolute rest frame.

Is this what you predict?

 

[PFanalog57]

Hello again Dr. D

As you keep[correctly] repeating, in so many words, that each event in space-time has its own intrinsic measure of the "present moment" which is the separation of past and future, with the future as an uncertainty.

Why not represent the present moment of an arbitrary observer as the inward collapse of the "past" light-cone to the present moment and the outward expanse of the future light-cone into the uncertain future.

A 2-dimensional "cross-section" of the present moment, or proper time of an observer, p:


[<-[->[<-[p]->]<-]->]

Now it appears that the past moments are cumulative and are increasing in density? as a cumulative stacking of present moments. Since the laws of physics are time invariant, the uncertain future is beholden to the action principle

Here is an interesting derivation of general relativity:

http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/General_Relativity.htm

 

[brodix]

russ,

The implication is that you have hit and passed the absolute state of rest and the clock is now traveling backwards from the direction it started in, in absolute space. You have therefore found the absolute rest frame.

The observation seems to be that space is the absolute. Time is relative to its rate of motion relative to it.(?)

 

[JoeWade]

if the galaxy is moving at 371km/s through the universe and light moves at 300,000 km/s through our galaxy doesn't it stand to reason that light moves 300,371 to 299,629 through the universe?

just curious about what that would be like...

 

[4newton]

Ok, I've been thinking more about your second thought experiment, 4Newton, and I think I figured out where you're going with it. To avoid you thinking I don't understand, I'll just finish it and you tell me if its right or wrong:

You have stated it better then I did and you do have the right idea.

Now the question is how does SR handle this idea not just from the conclusions people have made about SR but from the math. Where does SR state that V0 may not be a real absolute zero?

If there is any disagreement with SR then I think it is important to have an experiment to test for spatial zero rest. That is where the real experiment I have developed comes into play.

 

[4newton]

The implication is that you have hit and passed the absolute state of rest and the clock is now traveling backwards from the direction it started in, in absolute space. You have therefore found the absolute rest frame.

There was another post at the same time I was posting my last reply and I see this statement was not understood from the way you said it.

Acceleration or in this case deceleration is the way you move toward zero velocity after you reach zero velocity any change is acceleration and the clock doesn’t go backward into negative time the rate of the clock just starts to go slower still accumulating positive time.

I think this is what Russ was stating. This is the point of my thought experiment.

 

[Muddler]

Hi 4Newton!
I have to admit that after several times of reading I still don't really understand what your (2nd) experiment would prove.
Still, I think there is already one simple yet fundamental problem (I might be wrong though):

Three identical clocks are placed at positions E, F, and G. All clocks are repetitive and synchronized so that all clocks repeat zero at the same time.

How would you make sure they repeat zero at the same time??
Put them all together, reset them and then move them to your described starting points?
If so, how can we be sure, they are still repeating zero at the same time, when these starting points are reached? Don't we have to apply relativistic considerations the moment we are moving them apart?
Sure, as soon as the points are reached and the clocks are stationary to each other, it is valid to assume, they are ticking at the same rate, but I am afraid that's not identical with them displaying the same time.

I might be confusing things here, so please correct me, but that was what occurred to me when I read your description of the experiment...

 

[brodix]

4Newton,

The implication is that you have hit and passed the absolute state of rest and the clock is now traveling backwards from the direction it started in, in absolute space. You have therefore found the absolute rest frame.

Acceleration or in this case deceleration is the way you move toward zero velocity after you reach zero velocity any change is acceleration and the clock doesn’t go backward into negative time the rate of the clock just starts to go slower still accumulating positive time.

I don't think russ was suggesting that you go into negative time, but that since you reached the point of rest, motion in the other direction results in time starting to slow again.

the clock doesn’t go backward into negative time the rate of the clock just starts to go slower still accumulating positive time.

What you are saying here is that it isn't acceleration which causes time to slow, but velocity and as you deccelerate to zero velocity, the rate of time does continue to increase. So what russ is saying is that if you deccelerate to zero velocity, time reaches its maximum rate, then when you start accelerating in the opposite direction, time starts to slow again. Which is what you are saying.

 

[brodix]

So while space is an absolute, any method of measuring it requires time, which is relative.

The problem is that we confuse distance with space. Distance is a specific dimension, but space doesn't come with a set of coordinates. As I have argued previously, any number of coordinates can define the same space, so space is infinitely dimensional. Geometry never incorporated the zero, as it begins with the point, which is the center of a specific coordinate system. This is an arbitrary set, so zero in geometry is empty space. Distance, as a dimension, isn't zero, therefore it's not an absolute and is relative to whatever factors are determining it. It is the measurement of distance which leads to the conclusion that space is relative.

 

[russ_watters]

You have stated it better then I did and you do have the right idea.

Ok, so that is what you predict? Well, quite simply, it requires (assumes) that there is an absolute rest frame - a frame which if it existed would have been found with the M&M experiment. It requires a variable speed of light - something you haven't mentioned. There are a whole truckload of implications (predictions for the real experiments I mentioned) to the assumption of an absolute rest frame, and as stated in the presentation I linked: "There is no absolute reference frame."

The part where you are assuming it (even though you don't know it) is that you don't define the reference frames you are using ahead of time. To say one clock is moving faster than another, you have to say what it is moving with respect to: There is a 4th clock in a 4th reference frame in your thought experiment. This reference frame, you assume, is the absolute reference frame. It isn't. Its just as arbitrary as the arbitrary speeds you give to your moving clocks. When a clock stops moving in space and becomes stationary with respect to this arbitrary reference frame, then its stationary for the purpose of the thought experiment.

Now the question is how does SR handle this idea not just from the conclusions people have made about SR but from the math. Where does SR state that V0 may not be a real absolute zero?

The math follows the postulates. SR states that there is no absolute zero speed in the first postulate.

If there is any disagreement with SR then I think it is important to have an experiment to test for spatial zero rest.

And indeed there have been: SR exists largely because of these experiments and their failure to find the absolute frame.

That is where the real experiment I have developed comes into play.

Again, any of your experiments could be conducted in real life. Until they are, they are thought experiments. But not to worry, similar experiments have been conducted and based on these, we can predict the results of yours.

Acceleration or in this case deceleration is the way you move toward zero velocity after you reach zero velocity any change is acceleration and the clock doesn’t go backward into negative time the rate of the clock just starts to go slower still accumulating positive time.

That is correct (and brodix is correct) - that is what I was saying.

 

[russ_watters]

if the galaxy is moving at 371km/s through the universe and light moves at 300,000 km/s through our galaxy doesn't it stand to reason that light moves 300,371 to 299,629 through the universe?

just curious about what that would be like...

You are correct. And that's an implication that 4Newton hasn't mentioned. But the fact that that implication is not observed (the speed of light is constant to all observers) is an important piece of evidence that this universal frame does not exist.

 

[brodix]

russ,

if the galaxy is moving at 371km/s through the universe and light moves at 300,000 km/s through our galaxy doesn't it stand to reason that light moves 300,371 to 299,629 through the universe?

...the fact that that implication is not observed (the speed of light is constant to all observers) is an important piece of evidence that this universal frame does not exist.

An absolute isn't a reference frame, but an equilibrium.

It would seem that the speed of light being constant, regardless of ones own velocity, does require a counterbalancing relationship, with increasing velocity corresponding to a decreasing measure of time.

 

[4newton]

Time and time again

Hi to you Muddler and all.

I have to admit that after several times of reading I still don't really understand what your (2nd) experiment would prove.
Still, I think there is already one simple yet fundamental problem (I might be wrong though):

In the (2nd) experiment I am trying to establish that time dilation is bi-directional. That is if you move a clock from one frame moving at a velocity M to a frame that is moving at a higher velocity H your clock will tick slower. (Everyone seems to agree with this). If on the other hand you move a clock from H to a frame moving at a slower velocity M or even a slower moving frame L your clock will tick faster. (I seem to not be able to get a firm statement on this point.) You only have three choices, faster, no difference, or slower. Make you choice and tell why.

How would you make sure they repeat zero at the same time??
Put them all together, reset them and then move them to your described starting points?

Yes

If so, how can we be sure, they are still repeating zero at the same time, when these starting points are reached? Don't we have to apply relativistic considerations the moment we are moving them apart?

Yes, but clock F and G will move the same distance and may be tested by the fact that they accumulate the same amount of time, count, in the high speed counter from the high speed time base time base on each cycle of the pulse clock. Let me make clear that the high-speed time base, oscillator or what ever you would choose to produce a repetitive stable output has nothing to do with the pulse clock.
The rate of the pulse clock is not important. It is only necessary that the three pulse clocks are stable with regards to each other. The pulse clock and the high-speed time base should not be synchronized together to assure they do not lock on each other. If they lock together they will degrade the accumulated output of the counters resolution.

You may also synchronize the pulse clocks by using the pulse from the clock at E. You then check that the high-speed counters F and G agree or at least measure the ratio of their differences and use that to correct your test results. If you wish to have them agree all you need do is move counter G until it agree with counter F.

After this setup you are now ready to change the velocity of the frame and take you measurement.

 

[4newton]

Hi to Brodix.

What you are saying here is that it isn't acceleration which causes time to slow, but velocity and as you deccelerate to zero velocity, the rate of time does continue to increase. So what russ is saying is that if you deccelerate to zero velocity, time reaches its maximum rate, then when you start accelerating in the opposite direction, time starts to slow again. Which is what you are saying.

Yes, can you believe that two or more people on here can agree on anything?

 

[4newton]

Hi again Brodix.

The problem is that we confuse distance with space. Distance is a specific dimension, but space doesn't come with a set of coordinates. As I have argued previously, any number of coordinates can define the same space, so space is infinitely dimensional. Geometry never incorporated the zero, as it begins with the point, which is the center of a specific coordinate system. This is an arbitrary set, so zero in geometry is empty space. Distance, as a dimension, isn't zero, therefore it's not an absolute and is relative to whatever factors are determining it. It is the measurement of distance which leads to the conclusion that space is relative.

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.

 

[4newton]

Hi russ_watters
Russ if you want me to learn something please try not to jump ahead of my basic question to you.
The question is do clocks slow down when they go from a slower velocity to a higher velocity and do they speed up when going from a higher velocity to a slower velocity.

 

[JoeWade]

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

 

[russ_watters]

Hi russ_watters
Russ if you want me to learn something please try not to jump ahead of my basic question to you.
The question is do clocks slow down when they go from a slower velocity to a higher velocity and do they speed up when going from a higher velocity to a slower velocity.

Ok...the answer to the question is yes.

 

[Nacho]

I've read with interest the discussion here on whether there is no absolute space (per Relativity), or if there could be an absolute space.

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.

Rather than talking about things like "space/time is definitely relative, that is the way it is, and there absolutely cannot be anything else, Relativity demands it, it can't be any other way", he talks about them in terms of;

1) non-observables;
2) the corresponding symmetry transform; and
3) the conservation law or selection rule.

and he talks about the laws that were thought to be symmetrical and conserved the exact same way, and just says the symmetry breaking is an observable/has been observed. He makes no claim if symmetry will ever be broken for a particular group ... just that it is not observed.

 

[4newton]

Hi Russ:

Ok...the answer to the question is yes.

Thank you for putting up with me.
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.

 

[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.