So we have problems with clocks measureing time ?

[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.